| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 167846791 by Aymannnnnnnnnnnnnn @ 2025-06-19 22:17 Active block | 1 | 2025-06-20 01:06 | ilias_ ♦217 | Bonjour, quelle est ta source? Je n'ai jamais entendu parler d'une autoroute A6 reliant Safi et Ben Guerir... (quelle idée). Existe-t-elle vraiment ou est-elle le fruit de ton imagination? Je ne la vois sur aucune imagerie. |
| 2 | 2025-06-21 03:25 | ratrun | I'm not familiar with this areas, but this most likely is just fake. Shall I revert it? | |
| 3 | 2025-06-21 10:08 | ilias_ ♦217 | Yes please | |
| 4 | 2025-06-21 11:13 | ratrun | Reverted with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167908743#map=10/31.9063/-9.2689 | |
| 5 | 2025-06-21 12:43 | ilias_ ♦217 | Thanks ratrun! | |
| 166891555 by RAHinton_Import @ 2025-05-28 19:56 | 1 | 2025-06-20 03:52 | ratrun | Hi, this import is of bad quality as the ways are often not connected to each other. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=107.31982&lat=57.05298&zoom=8&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=unconnected_open_ends_1According to your import page you announced ... |
| 2 | 2025-06-30 14:13 | RAHinton ♦1 | Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll start addressing those issues. | |
| 167583497 by rsavoye @ 2025-06-13 16:41 | 1 | 2025-06-14 04:23 | ratrun | Hi,your recent changesets duplicated a lot of ways. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-102.95889&lat=39.75664&zoom=9&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=unconnected_open_ends_1These errors are all new.Please stop doing that. I'm going to a... |
| 2 | 2025-06-14 12:11 | rsavoye ♦46 | I'm deleting the duplicates, as I noticed the error, and stopped. It was an error in how I was using JOSM. This is my local area, I'd prefer to fix the problem than have the changesets reverted. | |
| 3 | 2025-06-14 12:26 | rsavoye ♦46 | Hum, I really screwed up. The few changesets show up in OsmCha as "possible import". It might be easier to revert them. I was trying to fix my own old bug in highway refs, but obviously did it wrong. | |
| 4 | 2025-06-14 14:05 | rsavoye ♦46 | I reported my mistake to the DWG, thanks for pointing it out. I didn't realize cut & paste in JOSM creates duplicate features. I've got a better way to fix my original bug. | |
| 167489279 by Vassiliou_RNV @ 2025-06-11 12:24 | 1 | 2025-06-12 03:39 | ratrun | Hallo!Der Weg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/906995423#map=19/49.484344/8.463547 endet im Nichts. Siehe https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=8.46332&lat=49.48409&zoom=19&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=unconnected_open_ends_1. Das kann auch für e... |
| 2 | 2025-06-12 07:49 | Vassiliou_RNV ♦2 | Hallo Ratrun, danke für den Hinweis. Ich habe die Busbevorrechtigung korrigiert und PSV ergänzt. BG | |
| 160379707 by ratrun @ 2024-12-19 06:59 | 1 | 2025-06-06 13:05 | Kovirii ♦30 | For some reason this changeset left a bunch of disembodied points along but path of path "1896" |
| 2 | 2025-06-06 13:49 | ratrun | Can you please better describe what you mean with "path of path "1896"", I have no idea what you mean by that. | |
| 167177184 by ccmatei @ 2025-06-04 12:25 | 1 | 2025-06-05 03:40 | ratrun | Hi, you just duplicated already existing ways in your last 6 changesets. As these edits messed up the existing data, I reverted them. Please stop doing such bad edits, otherwise I need to ask the DWG to block your account.thanksratrun |
| 166819245 by ccmatei @ 2025-05-27 10:46 | 1 | 2025-05-27 11:16 | NeisReview ♦869 | #NameCheckHello and welcome to OSM.Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits, particularly those concerning the names you've added or modified.Some of these names caught my attention as they are quite unique or a bit unusual. Could you please con... |
| 2 | 2025-05-27 11:17 | NeisReview ♦869 | #DataImportHi, welcome to OSM!With this changeset, you've added a significant number of features that appear to share similarities in their tags. Could you please let us know more about the source of your mapping activity? Is this a data import?Looking forward to hearing from you.... | |
| 3 | 2025-05-28 03:11 | ratrun | The huge amount of highway tags on nodes is just stupid. I would favor a revert of this whole changeset. | |
| 4 | 2025-05-28 12:52 | NeisReview ♦869 | We haven't yet received a reply from ccmatei, which is unfortunate. :-/ | |
| 166209976 by mreza12 @ 2025-05-13 15:44 | 1 | 2025-05-14 03:40 | ratrun | Hi,can you please explain what this Piroozi Boulevard is? From the tagging it looks like a highway, but as it is not connected to the rest of the road network and there are already existing ways nearby this edit looks unrealistic to me.An if this is still under construction then the highway=res... |
| 165897924 by Mercy14846 @ 2025-05-06 15:27 | 1 | 2025-05-07 10:37 | HirschKauz ♦266 | Hi, you may use [note:] as a prefix, but not as a suffix. (and in singular, without 's')please read: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:note |
| 2 | 2025-05-08 03:27 | ratrun | Hello,as you seem to have local knowledge: can you please add the allowed transport to the ferries, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route=ferryAdditionally, the ferry end points/ ferry_terminal are not connected to the road network, which prevents routing. See the errors detected b... | |
| 3 | 2025-05-08 07:35 | HirschKauz ♦266 | Hi! sorry, I have no local knowledge. I stumbled on this due to the accumulation of strange new keys. | |
| 4 | 2025-05-08 14:46 | Mercy14846 ♦3 | Hi @HirschKauz Thank you for catching error and we will look into it. | |
| 5 | 2025-05-08 14:47 | Mercy14846 ♦3 | Hi @HirschKauz Thank you for catching error and we will look into it. | |
| 6 | 2025-05-08 14:52 | Mercy14846 ♦3 | Hi @ratrunThe ferry route are not directly connected to highway, as we may have in other parts of the world.They are mostly local businesses and not well structured from the government | |
| 7 | 2025-05-09 04:06 | ratrun | Hi @Mercy14846,A ferry must be somehow connected to the road network in the surrounding, otherwise a ferry is useless as people are not able to enter it, not even by foot only.If this is the case, there is the possibility to connect the ferries with so called informal ways https://wiki.opens... | |
| 8 | 2025-05-23 05:13 | Mercy14846 ♦3 | Hello @ratrunWe deeply appreciate your feedback. We are working on it with the team, and we will get back to you if we need additional support. | |
| 9 | 2025-05-23 07:51 | Fisayo23 ♦1 | Hello @ratrun. I worked on this project with @mercy14846. Yes, these ferries only transport people --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165897924 | |
| 165218422 by SchnitzelSavage @ 2025-04-21 03:52 | 1 | 2025-04-30 16:42 | ratrun | Hello and welcome to OSM,thank you for you contributions!I stumbled across this change in this way:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/128573470#map=17/-37.214135/-72.386105You tagged it with cycleway:left:oneway= -1 and cycleway:right:oneway=-1.Could you please describe your motivat... |
| 165244092 by ratrun @ 2025-04-21 14:48 | 1 | 2025-04-21 18:19 | Palamito ♦2 | Hallo, could you kindly explain what was the problem with the following way? I am new to the community and I want to know how I could use the OSM inspector tool and what was the routing error. Thanks in advance |
| 2 | 2025-04-22 03:30 | ratrun | Hi,the two nodes in the north https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12771048444 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12660784502 were very close, but not connected. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing why connections are important. | |
| 163895462 by Ahostav 76 @ 2025-03-21 09:09 | 1 | 2025-03-21 20:00 | t_ja ♦203 | Ahoj,tieto zmeny sú bohužiaľ takmer všetky úplne zle :(Preto navrhujem, že vrátim OSM údaje do pôvodného stavu a keď si prečítaš pripomienky nižšie + doštuduješ si OSM wiki, skúsiš pridá... |
| 2 | 2025-03-23 05:10 | ratrun | Due to the huge amount of errors and to avoid more conflicts by waiting I reverted this changeset in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163971565#map=13/49.26570/18.83303 | |
| 3 | 2025-03-23 12:35 | Taya_S ♦978 | Thank you giving them such comprehensive feedback. Sadly it didn't work.I have given them a 1 week block and reverted their latest edits. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17441 | |
| 4 | 2025-03-25 00:09 | aceman444 ♦2,566 | Uf, ste si dali pracu s vysvetlenim mnohych chyb. | |
| 163834824 by d3us_ @ 2025-03-19 20:14 | 1 | 2025-03-20 16:11 | ratrun | Hallo und willkommen bei OSM!In deiner ersten Änderung hast du einige offensichtliche Fehler in die Daten eingebaut. Ein paar Wege sind jetzt nämlich nicht mehr verbunden. Siehe https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=7.03063&lat=51.49340&zoom=13&baselayer=Geo... |
| 2 | 2025-03-22 03:01 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,068 | revertedhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163930855 | |
| 163493596 by Liamgg @ 2025-03-11 16:46 | 1 | 2025-03-12 17:39 | ratrun | Hi and welcome to OSM,you used a wrong mapping method for adding these bus routes. Bus routes need to be mapped as relations, but you added new ways of highway type busway, which is wrong. Do you feel comfortable to correct that? Please check the OSM wiki at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/B... |
| 2 | 2025-03-13 07:33 | ratrun | As requested in your private message tried to help you out. I deleted all the new way tagged with highway=busway and converted one of it (Walmart/Mercy Bus Route Pt. 2) into a bus route relation, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18816825 as an example such that you can see how this is done... | |
| 162520352 by sbaumg2s @ 2025-02-14 22:12 | 1 | 2025-02-15 18:15 | ratrun | Hallo!Das Hinzufügen der neuen zusätzlichen Wege war überflüssig, da die bestehenden Wege nicht integriert/überarbeitet wurden. Ich habe daher diesen Änderungssatz rückgängig gemacht um die so entstandenen Fehler zu beseitigen. |
| 2 | 2025-02-15 18:26 | sbaumg2s ♦1 | Es ist kein Fahrradweg markiert gewesen. Daher ist ein kein Fehler, sondern zusätzlich Information. Danke für das löschen meiner Arbeit. | |
| 3 | 2025-02-15 18:36 | ratrun | Wenn das Tagging der bestehenden Wege nicht passt, dann ist die korrekte Vorgangsweise die Tags an diesen zu verändern und nicht zusätzliche Duplikat Wege anzulegen. Bitte berücksichte das bei zukunftigen Änderungen.Danke!ratrun | |
| 4 | 2025-02-15 18:45 | sbaumg2s ♦1 | Ich kenne mich mit dem System noch nicht gut aus. Wenn du das kannst, ändere doch einfach so ab, wie es passender ist, statt einfach zu löschen. Und wenn du dir nicht sicher bist, was mein Ziel war, kannst du erstmal anfragen! | |
| 5 | 2025-02-15 18:54 | ratrun | Sorry, ja, ich hätte vielleicht nachfragen können aber ich habe gesehen dass du dich noch nicht so viel gempped hast und einen typischen Anfängerfehler gemacht hast. Das ist OK, jeder macht Fehler am Anfang. Ich wollte dir nur die Arbeit des Löschens abnehmen, weil das sowieso no... | |
| 6 | 2025-02-15 19:06 | sbaumg2s ♦1 | Es ist kein Anfängerfehler. Ich mappe seit Jahren hin und wieder, aber das System ist so geeky, die Lernkurve ist so hoch...und wenn man gar nicht auf Anhieb sieht, wie das im Ergebnis aussieht, weil nur vielleicht 1x im Monat gerendert wird, vergisst man diese Plattform schnell wieder. Und dan... | |
| 162374439 by Zubulus @ 2025-02-11 03:06 | 1 | 2025-02-11 18:03 | ratrun | Hi!The data you added here is of very poor quality as you entered most of the ways multiple times without connecting the end nodes to the other ways. Therefore, it creates a couple of routing errors. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-71.40618&lat=46.83693&zoom=15... |
| 162084869 by RuanZ @ 2025-02-03 12:50 | 1 | 2025-02-04 17:46 | ratrun | Hi and welcome to OSM,please stop adding the name tag which are not names. E.g. name=Footpath,Pavers is superfluous as these properties is no real name. |
| 162081097 by cloudVoicerHub @ 2025-02-03 11:29 | 1 | 2025-02-04 17:28 | ratrun | Please explain the source of you edits in more detail. To me theses edits look suspicious as they are creating unconnected ways in favor of dubious new data. |
| 2 | 2025-02-07 10:39 | woodpeck_repair ♦33,903 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 162239696 where the changeset comment is: revert un-documented and buggy fuel station import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17202 | |
| 161722425 by kotsios1908 @ 2025-01-24 17:45 Active block | 1 | 2025-01-25 17:31 | ratrun | Hi and welcome to OSM,You made a couple of mistakes in your initial changesets. This particular one seems to be the worst. You created a motorway which ends in the middle of nowhere, which obviously does not seem right. Please use useful changeset comments and describe the source of your changes... |
| 2 | 2025-01-26 16:09 | ratrun | In the meantime the change is reverted by another user, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161764790 . Please stop making fake edits, otherwise I need to report you to the data working group | |
| 161128174 by Lửng mật @ 2025-01-08 10:42 | 1 | 2025-01-10 07:56 | gscholz ♦2,778 | Hi Lửng mật,this changeset has created errors in the OSM database regarding overlapping ways (blue markers):https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=105.68432&lat=19.35871&zoom=11&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edgesAs you may know, this... |
| 2 | 2025-01-17 05:32 | ratrun | Your edits are of very bad quality and your changeset titles "Update" are totally useless. Please provide the source of your edits. | |
| 161324650 by VLD287 @ 2025-01-13 20:54 | 1 | 2025-01-14 17:03 | ratrun | Hi, I'm also not from this area, but this edit seems wrong. Please explain the barrier of which you are talking in in the changeset comment. I doubt that it is possible to spot a barrier from an Esri World Imagery source.The edit destroyed the routing and therefore I plan to revert this c... |
| 2 | 2025-01-14 18:00 | VLD287 ♦5 | Hi Ratrun,Thank you for reaching out. The barrier was adjusted to reflect recent construction and prevent overlap with the road. Barriers are on medians that can be seen in aerial imagery. This was confirmed through Bing and Mapbox. I have replaced the highway tagging to fix the routing issue. I&#... | |
| 158744414 by morgen1 @ 2024-11-04 14:56 Active block | 1 | 2025-01-12 04:40 | ratrun | Hi,you reverted my guessed fix, but now the dead end road starts out of the blue, which does not make any sense. Please fix this obvious routing errorthanksratrun |
| 2 | 2025-01-12 09:55 | morgen1 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 3 | 2025-01-12 22:50 | arte2002 ♦56 | HolaParece que está todo en obras, hubiera sido interesante dejar las vías antiguas (las que se ven en el mapa) y marcarlas con 'removed:highway' para que otros editores lo tengan claropor ejemplo como aquíhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160965694#map=1... | |
| 4 | 2025-01-12 22:53 | arte2002 ♦56 | Mejor estehttps://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/38.336594/-0.777987&layers=D | |
| 161206719 by Goose_senior @ 2025-01-10 13:59 | 1 | 2025-01-11 05:20 | ratrun | Hi and welcome to OSM!Please connect the end nodes of the ways with the junction node. You have created a lot of routing errors as the ways are now unconnected! See OSMI routing view: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-89.33779&lat=42.23967&zoom=13&baselayer=Geof... |
| 161131307 by Duja @ 2025-01-08 12:15 | 1 | 2025-01-09 17:18 | ratrun | Hi, please stop continuing with your current editor pattern. You are creating a lot of unconnected ways and therefore destroy routing capability. See the Openstreetmap Inspector routing view: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=20.44550&lat=44.53589&zoom=13&baselayer=Ge... |
| 2 | 2025-01-10 08:28 | Duja ♦85 | I'll fix them ASAP. I was relying on iD's warnings about crossing ways/disconnected ways, but they are produced haphazardly, leaving a lot of undetected ones. I will open an issue with iD. | |
| 3 | 2025-01-10 09:41 | Duja ♦85 | I resolved one batch (it will take a few iterations) through 161197843, and reported an issue to iD at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/10671 | |
| 4 | 2025-01-10 13:00 | ratrun | Thank you for the information and your effort for cleaning the data. | |
| 160896885 by Philurba @ 2025-01-02 08:41 | 1 | 2025-01-03 04:49 | ratrun | Hi and welcome to OSM.Can you please explain your change here. It does not make sense to me and deepl translates your changeset comment into "Following deliberation by the CM in September 2024" which does not make sense either.Currently the road is interrupted and lacking connectivit... |
| 2 | 2025-01-03 08:15 | Philurba ♦1 | There was confusion between “rue de Dampierre” and “la route de Dampierre” creating delivery difficulties and above all a waste of time for emergency services. The Municipal Council therefore decided to change the name of the road: “route de Dampierre” becomes &ld... | |
| 3 | 2025-01-03 08:51 | ratrun | OK thank you. You changed the name, but why did you remove the highway tag? See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/809915095/history | |
| 4 | 2025-01-03 09:09 | Philurba ♦1 | This is a mistake.I'm starting. I just wanted to change the name of the route.But can you explain to me (or do it) how to change all the mentions "route de Dampierre" to "route de Satory" in one go? Thanks | |
| 5 | 2025-01-03 09:28 | ratrun | Sorry I can`t help you with instructions for ID as I'm not familiar with the ID web editor. I just use JOSM as it is much better. But I can perform the change for you if you like. Please give me instructions where to change the name. From your description it looks to me as if the name "Rou... | |
| 6 | 2025-01-03 10:26 | Philurba ♦1 | Yes it's exactly that :"Route de Dampierre" replaced by "route de Satory" on all the segments.I'm going to try JOSM.Tanks for your help ! | |
| 7 | 2025-01-03 12:59 | ratrun | Thank you for confirmation!I now changed the names according to your instructions above, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160947436#map=16/48.77957/2.09820Please note that I didn't change the name yet for the segments further in the south here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/w... | |
| 8 | 2025-01-03 13:49 | Philurba ♦1 | thank you again for your help. The name change stops at Place Frères Perret (intersection with boulevard jean Jaurès : https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160896885#map=19/48.770958/2.082739)The southern part must not be touched. I hadn't seen these other changes yet. | |
| 160852235 by ZeLonewolf @ 2025-01-01 02:06 | 1 | 2025-01-01 15:58 | ratrun | Hi, this change does not seem to be a good idea. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448845172: you left the descriptive tags of the highway but removed the highway tag itself. Now there are unconnected ways.Please fix this on that location and also here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/467... |
| 2 | 2025-01-01 16:36 | ZeLonewolf ♦556 | Whoops, must have fat fingered the wrong key. Thanks for alerting me | |
| 3 | 2025-01-01 22:56 | ZeLonewolf ♦556 | Ok, everything should be set now. I reverted this changeset and re-created it correctly in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160888051. Please confirm that everything looks as expected. | |
| 4 | 2025-01-02 05:01 | ratrun | Thanks, looks good now. | |
| 160661274 by ratrun @ 2024-12-27 04:21 | 1 | 2024-12-29 01:02 | donovaly ♦37 | Why did you make this change? You prolonged a street under construction but there is no construction yet (checked personally this Monday)Please only map what you see live. |
| 2 | 2024-12-29 05:10 | ratrun | Please check the complete history in the future before you make statements about a change. I only connected unconnected ways to newly created constructions, which were added by another user https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Jonaianimail. See the history here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/134... | |
| 3 | 2024-12-30 00:10 | donovaly ♦37 | > I only connected unconnected ways to newly created constructionsBut you did not check that these additions were real. The user you mentioned is a vandal, he changed administrative boundaries, even the position of Tirana's main river.Please only add things you are sure they exist.(F... | |
| 160493267 by ericdu62 @ 2024-12-22 08:21 | 1 | 2024-12-23 04:39 | ratrun | Hi,you are adding new ways without considering the existing ways. Besides that you are not commenting your changesets. Please improve this in your future edits.As your new ways were mostly superfluous, I fixed all the connectivity errors by removing these new unconnected ways. |
| 160270435 by Pavans @ 2024-12-14 07:27 | 1 | 2024-12-18 18:35 | ratrun | Hi,please check this edit: It is totally unrealistic as the connectivity to the existing road network is brokenthanksratrun |
| 2 | 2024-12-20 13:58 | Pavans ♦11 | Thank you for your valuable suggestions and feedback. Based on local knowledge and input from our local team, we have removed the road closure tag. If you have strong evidence that our input is incorrect, please feel free to revert the changesThanks,Pavan | |
| 160229391 by rkdclgh @ 2024-12-13 03:18 | 1 | 2024-12-18 18:16 | ratrun | Hi,this edit is big and covers a huge area. Please create smaller change-sets in the future such that it becomes easier to check what it contains.Something weird has happened in this particular change: Can you please check node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3674220421This node is ju... |
| 2 | 2024-12-19 08:24 | gscholz ♦2,778 | Hi rkdclgh,this changeset has created several errors regarding self intersecting ways:https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=126.55335&lat=35.04408&zoom=12&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in... | |
| 3 | 2024-12-20 09:31 | rkdclgh ♦7 | Thanks for reporting. All fixed. | |
| 160249077 by Mgl 67 @ 2024-12-13 14:44 | 1 | 2024-12-14 05:53 | ratrun | Hi,your edits contain a lot of connectivity problems. These are detected with https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-0.95282&lat=41.50886&zoom=11&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=unconnected_open_ends_1Please connect the ways at the junctions.thank yo... |
| 160164298 by Djibril Abdoul Ahmad MAIGA @ 2024-12-11 11:16 | 1 | 2024-12-13 06:32 | ratrun | Hello and welcome to OSM,I spotted your edits as they are of low quality. These tertiary roads you are creating do not seem right. According to your change-set comment you are using Bing images as source. But I do not spot any ways on the locations where you created these new tertiary highways. ... |
| 160162122 by yhr864d @ 2024-12-11 10:12 | 1 | 2024-12-13 06:10 | ratrun | Hello,I care about routing connectivity and found your detailed edits are containing a lot of connectivity issues. Here is one typical example of a way you created: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1341763693#map=19/33.177024/131.539318As you are not connecting your new ways to the residential ... |
| 159514188 by Reclus @ 2024-11-23 20:59 | 1 | 2024-11-26 16:04 | ratrun | Hallo!Was ist der Sinn und Zweck der doppelten Erfassung von https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1337248961 , wo https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/220093221#map=19/51.419057/7.274610 und https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/261193598 bereits parallel dazu laufen? Ich denke den neuen Weg kann man l&ou... |
| 158856967 by Dima Krishan @ 2024-11-07 13:52 | 1 | 2024-11-08 13:18 | ratrun | Hi and welcome to OSM!Please note that in general copying from Google Maps, or tracing Google aerial imagery is unacceptable because of licensing issues. I therefore reverted this changeset. |
| 158189468 by YorkiePudd @ 2024-10-21 22:12 | 1 | 2024-10-24 17:48 | ratrun | Hi and welcome to OSM,here you changed a stream into a highway=primary : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/476569787/historyand here as well: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/476569790These changes do not make sense because there are already existing roads and the new ones are not eve... |
| 2 | 2024-10-24 18:00 | YorkiePudd ♦2 | Hi, I was still learning how to edit Open Street Maps and clearly didn't do a great job I was trying to make it so vehicles had access to Hall Ings and buses had access to Bridge Street and Sunbridge Road up to the A6181 junction. | |
| 3 | 2024-10-24 18:24 | ratrun | Thank you. I now only partially reverted your changes in this changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158308645 Could you please check? | |
| 4 | 2024-10-24 21:51 | YorkiePudd ♦2 | I'm not sure what I'm looking at TBH it looks like Hall Ings isn't attached to Princes Way properly and also goes onto Sunbridge Road for some reason | |
| 5 | 2024-10-31 23:41 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,068 | HiDo you have a source for Jacob's Well roundabout on Princes Way and Hall Ings south of city park still being open?Mapillary or Kartaview imagery would be ideal.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapillaryhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/KartaView | |
| 6 | 2024-10-31 23:49 | YorkiePudd ♦2 | I got the impression the road closure was temporary while they demolished the car park, but I could be wrong | |
| 158288682 by 08-D @ 2024-10-24 09:54 | 1 | 2024-10-24 17:22 | ratrun | Hi, these changes do not make any sense: You created Via di Marciola twice https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1327467085#map=18/43.720738/11.127674 tagged with oneway=no and additionally you created the partially overlapping way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1327287033 which is tagged with oneway... |
| 2 | 2024-10-24 20:21 | 08-D ♦1 | Hi ratrun,I apologize fom my mistakeVia di Marciola is s 2 way road.The change 158248397 in incorrect and I hope I fixed with the edit 158288682The original goal is to create 2 new lwn CAI network "sentiero cai 740" from Santa Maria a Marciola to intersection with road to Azi... | |
| 157930224 by ratrun @ 2024-10-15 17:02 | 1 | 2024-10-15 20:02 | ToniE ♦1,226 | Servus,In dem Gebiet habe ich zwei CS entdeckt, die vor deinem Edit massive Schäden vor allem an Bus-Relationen verursacht haben.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157862753https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157871107Ich habe die Mapperin schon angeschrieben und wollte... |
| 2 | 2024-10-16 05:15 | ratrun | Hallo!Zu: "Könntest du evtl. ermitteln, ob dieser Edit hier von den beiden Reverts dann betroffen sein könnte?"Da ich Verbindungsprobleme ausgebessert habe, die durch diese Changesets entstanden sind, wirst du ziemlich sicher Konflikte bekommen falls du versuchst die gena... | |
| 3 | 2024-10-16 06:37 | ToniE ♦1,226 | Danke, habe die CS gerade revertiert. | |
| 4 | 2024-10-16 06:46 | ToniE ♦1,226 | 157949161, 157949196, 157949260 | |
| 131858935 by CharliePlett @ 2023-01-30 00:09 | 1 | 2024-09-22 04:35 | ratrun | Hi,I'm analyzing unrealistic long ferry duration's. For https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1136330536 you entered 15 hours. Did you mean 15 minutes, which is still even long for these 1150 meters? Please note that the duration tag does not include any waiting time.Thanks |
| 2 | 2024-10-04 11:19 | CharliePlett ♦20 | Hi, I guess I meant 15 minutes. I'm not even sure where I got that from. So, either put 15 minutes or erase the tag. | |
| 3 | 2024-10-04 12:52 | ratrun | Thank you, fixed with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1136330536 | |
| 157205017 by zayati wiwi @ 2024-09-28 11:01 | 1 | 2024-09-28 15:05 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | You name all your changesets with test_zayati.Please do not use OSM for testing purposes as we do have other means for that.Please read this:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_commentsBest regards, Marc Zoutendijk OpenStreetMap Foundation Data Working Group |
| 2 | 2024-09-29 04:56 | ratrun | It is not only this, the changesets of this user extensively duplicates existing features! I would ask to block this user and revert the 4 changesets which he made the same day. I tried to revert these via the JOSM reverter plugin, but I get a couple of conflicts, so a more professional revert tooli... | |
| 3 | 2024-10-02 18:16 | woodpeck_repair ♦33,903 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 157390485, 157390481, 157390482 where the changeset comment is: revert edits by zayati_wiwi, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157205017 | |
| 156897603 by verifieduser0916 @ 2024-09-21 06:46 Active block | 1 | 2024-09-22 07:19 | ratrun | Hi and welcome to OSM,please explain the source of this modifications. This all sees very unlikely. |
| 2 | 2024-09-22 21:00 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,068 | removd | |
| 156810986 by Lioteam @ 2024-09-19 09:50 | 1 | 2024-09-22 06:35 | ratrun | Hi,you edited https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1137278754 .Can you please check it, this none oneway primary, which is not connected at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11534726699 does not make sensethanks! |
| 156931908 by marc_marc_repair @ 2024-09-21 23:46 | 1 | 2024-09-22 05:51 | ratrun | Thank you!I tried to figure out how this could have happened, but I don't have any idea. And this happened too long ago, such that I do not remember. May I ask what tool you are using such that you spotted this mistake? |
| 2 | 2024-09-22 13:21 | marc__marc ♦1,265 | Osmose.openstreetmap.fr warn for orphan node groups.I loaded them into josm with overpass and found that it made a linear feature.using overpass I looked at the state of osm at the time these nodes were created, I found that there was a way deleted :) | |
| 3 | 2024-09-22 21:28 | marc_marc_repair ♦233 | https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/fr/issues/open?item=1080&level=1%2C2%2C3https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#item=1080&level=1%2C2%2C3 | |
| 144269715 by iloveosm2004 @ 2023-11-21 03:43 | 1 | 2024-09-22 04:25 | ratrun | Hi,I'm analyzing unrealistic long ferry duration's. For https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1101437576#map=15/20.96992/105.91142 you entered 30 hours. Did you mean 30 minutes, which is still even long for these 450 meters or 30 seconds? |
| 2 | 2024-09-22 04:28 | ratrun | Just noticed: The same error is here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1102373766thanks! | |
| 156675648 by Pan @ 2024-09-16 07:53 | 1 | 2024-09-17 15:46 | ratrun | Hi,please check your edit here. Now there are two parallel ways https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1315867708#map=19/46.317899/6.975411 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1315867708 where one of it is superfluous. The same happened with way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37283347 and https:... |
| 2 | 2024-09-17 20:59 | Pan ♦50 | Thank you very much. I don't know how I could do this mistake. I think I corrected it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156747221 . Please may I know which tool you used to detect the mapping mistake? I could help me detecting it myself. | |
| 3 | 2024-09-18 03:51 | ratrun | Sure, the tool I'm using is the Openstreetmap Inspector routing view, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector . Here is the setting and zoom level I'm using: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=7.76770&lat=46.90825&zoom=8&baselayer=Geofabrik%20St... | |
| 4 | 2024-09-18 03:55 | Pan ♦50 | Thanks a lot. I mostly use the same tool to detect area error but I will also check the routing from time to time.I think I made the error because of a conflict (I validated an other contributor modification without checking as I uploaded mine). | |
| 156283517 by Liberth_PMI @ 2024-09-06 16:33 | 1 | 2024-09-08 06:45 | ratrun | Hi and welcome to OSM!You added new ways without considering the already existing data. As one example see the existing way https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/73364735#map=19/-7.966239/129.647456 . As you choose to completely add new better aligned ways you need to remove the old data from ... |
| 156194143 by Eliška H @ 2024-09-04 16:00 | 1 | 2024-09-07 05:51 | ratrun | Hi, please stop your low quality edits! You have created a bunch of unconnected roads without looking at the already existing data. Whatever your HOT project is which you are working for, but this does not improve the map, it is rather the opposite!thanksratrun |
| 156269970 by zayati wiwi @ 2024-09-06 11:22 | 1 | 2024-09-07 05:37 | ratrun | Please stop making strange data duplications! -> Reverted |
| 156195644 by ratrun @ 2024-09-04 16:39 | 1 | 2024-09-06 06:45 | BCNorwich ♦4,846 | Hi, I've removed two highways that you placed on top of existing highways, Way: 1313007960 and Way: 1313007939. This duplication disrupts routing.Regards Bernard |
| 2 | 2024-09-07 05:17 | ratrun | Thanks, it seems I overlooked some, probably because of the amount of the problems in this area. | |
| 156235690 by ratrun @ 2024-09-05 15:00 | 1 | 2024-09-05 17:33 | TheodoreTNB ♦3 | You have removed an existing tunnel, that had been built in 1914, and it still exists today. (The proposed part, is that the city plans to renovate it for motor traffic). |
| 2 | 2024-09-06 04:42 | ratrun | I'm sorry for modifying it, I could not believe this as the location is within a town. I reverted my change and added the layer tag. | |
| 155526268 by Cricri93160 @ 2024-08-20 19:22 | 1 | 2024-08-21 16:05 | ratrun | Hi and welcome to OSM!Could you please check you newly created oneway way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1309110592 ? Please delete this way and apply the oneway tag to the respective segments of the previously already existing way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/242885938. Splitting this ... |
| 2 | 2024-08-23 14:11 | Cricri93160 ♦5 | Hello, I don't understand what mistake I'm making | |
| 3 | 2024-08-23 14:27 | ratrun | You created the new way way 1309110592 although there is already way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/242885938 there. Now they are parallel ways. It might be a bad implementation of the Go Map editor your are using. Please open the ways in a proper OSM editor like ID or JOSM and then you'll ... | |
| 4 | 2024-08-23 14:35 | Cricri93160 ♦5 | Okay, I'm going to watch it tonight. I'm new to Osm and so I'm learning at the moment despite the fact that an acquaintance showed me the essentials on go map as I do with my iPhone | |
| 5 | 2024-08-23 15:13 | Cricri93160 ♦5 | I just changed the rue du bois d Avron normally now it's good. Indeed, I had created a path in parallel | |
| 6 | 2024-08-23 15:27 | ratrun | Great! Can you also please check the other edits you did? Here is another example I detected: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155613067 | |
| 7 | 2024-08-23 15:37 | ratrun | If you don't remember the other similar changes, this is no problem, the routing view of the OpenStreetMap inspector at https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=2.71068&lat=48.72189&zoom=11&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=unconnected_open_ends_1 detects thes... | |
| 155583857 by sis651 @ 2024-08-22 02:28 | 1 | 2024-08-23 14:01 | ratrun | Hi sis651!Please stop tagging highway=track with the name Tarla Yolu. I looked it up, it is the turkey name of track road and we don't use the name tag for classificationthanksratrun |
| 155046406 by ratrun @ 2024-08-10 04:07 | 1 | 2024-08-10 15:38 | OSM_RogerWilco ♦722 | Hi ratrun,das ist nicht richtig, jetzt hast Du die beiden Zufahrten auf der unteren und oberen Ebene vom Parkdeck miteinander verbunden. Siehe die unterschiedlichen layer von den beiden ways.Gruß Roger Wilco |
| 2 | 2024-08-11 04:55 | ratrun | Hallo,Sorry und danke fürs richtigstellen! | |
| 154770539 by logus2 @ 2024-08-03 11:44 | 1 | 2024-08-08 03:48 | ratrun | Hi,this was not good idea as these ways are disconnected from the rest of the network. Please fix this, otherwise I'll need to revert. |
| 2 | 2024-08-08 05:46 | logus2 ♦15 | they have never been disconnected. Only the ways' tags has been changed. Plus, does it even matter? the railroad haven't been active for so long that some amount of decay is inevitable. | |
| 3 | 2024-08-08 05:58 | ratrun | Sorry, but it seems you didn't understand my concerns: Just adding the tags is not enough, now you need to connect these ways to the existing ways. Otherwise the are not connected. | |
| 154739119 by ratrun @ 2024-08-02 14:25 | 1 | 2024-08-02 16:00 | mcliquid ♦1,850 | Why is the specification of surface wrong for a bicycle parking? I haven't looked at the changes in Africa. |
| 2 | 2024-08-02 16:21 | ratrun | thanks a lot for detecting this. I'm very sorry for creating this changeset with a way to big bounding box. It was an accident when I removed many way nodes in Africa, which were tagged with a surface tag. I forgot to click the search invert in JOSM when I searched for the nodes. I reverted the... | |
| 3 | 2024-08-02 16:23 | mcliquid ♦1,850 | Thank you for the revert! Have a nice day of mapping! | |
| 154624922 by Hypoferalkus @ 2024-07-30 21:55 | 1 | 2024-08-01 14:14 | ratrun | Hallo Hypoferalkus!Der Knoten https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12084023010#map=19/50.26241/9.18948 ist nicht verbunden mit dem Nachbarknoten https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12084023009. Auf Bing ist ein Hindernis dazwischen erkennbar, aber nicht gemapped. Kannst Du bitte entweder die beid... |
| 154251968 by Lửng mật @ 2024-07-22 09:00 | 1 | 2024-07-23 16:30 | ratrun | Hi,Can you please be more descriptive in your changeset comment? Where does your source come from? On the Bing areal image which you used as background this new ??? road is not visible. Additionally this road is not connected to the existing ways in that area. If this is a new road they please c... |
| 154129070 by MS$ @ 2024-07-19 06:44 Active block | 1 | 2024-07-20 05:58 | gscholz ♦2,778 | HI MS$,your recent changesets have create several errors regarding duplicate nodes:https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=72.98238&lat=33.17268&zoom=8&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=single_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_waySince you have been worki... |
| 2 | 2024-07-20 14:00 | ratrun | It seems this user is a vandal. I asked the DWG for a complete revert of all changes made | |
| 3 | 2024-07-20 18:54 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16479 | |
| 4 | 2024-07-24 09:30 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 154340586 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: vandalism on highways | |
| 5 | 2024-07-25 07:29 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 154379345 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert version 2: vandalism on highways | |
| 6 | 2024-07-25 07:38 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 154379652 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert version 3: vandalism on highways | |
| 153702833 by LakeHulun @ 2024-07-08 12:52 | 1 | 2024-07-14 06:03 | ratrun | Hi,what is the purpose of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/377639961 This perfect circle highway residential is obviously wrong. |
| 2 | 2024-07-16 10:36 | LakeHulun ♦3 | Hello Ratrun, thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. It seems I unintentionally added a large circular feature when my objective was to modify a street name on a nearby road. It appears this has already been fixed by another community editor here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/... | |
| 153819545 by Ahmad-0772 @ 2024-07-11 16:29 | 1 | 2024-07-12 14:08 | ratrun | Hi,please check https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/741999000/history for road connectivity. It looks very unrealistic that it ends at this point with a noexitthanksratrun |
| 2 | 2024-07-12 14:43 | Ahmad-0772 ♦13 | Hi ratrun,Thanks for your concern I made the road a dead end because of the available source on OSM it appears that the road is closed/dead end/no connection at 40.83764,40.47053.Regards,Ahmed | |
| 153016923 by ratrun @ 2024-06-22 06:33 | 1 | 2024-06-24 15:08 | simonschaufi ♦12 | @ratrun, what exactly did you change here? Unfortunately OSM doesn't really show the changes here in the history. At least the line is not showing up anymore. |
| 2 | 2024-06-24 16:31 | ratrun | Hi,I fixed a routing error by merging the separate unconnected end points of your new ferry line to node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/83560399#map=19/37.90583/20.70649 such that it got connected to the pier https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/77669809#map=19/37.90522/20.70794. I cannot provide... | |
| 3 | 2024-06-24 18:11 | simonschaufi ♦12 | Yes, I got some help because the rendered line wasn't rendered anymore with your change. CharliePlett has fixed that again. | |
| 153016113 by juanvg08 @ 2024-06-22 05:56 | 1 | 2024-06-23 06:03 | ratrun | Hi and welcome to OSM,first, when you make changes please make sure to add a usefull changeset comment. "CDCDDDDD" is useless.Second, please check your tagging: The tagging for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1294896327 does not make any sense as "access=no" forbids any... |
| 152579198 by HPBC @ 2024-06-12 09:49 | 1 | 2024-06-13 15:39 | ratrun | Hi, your new way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1291253135 needs to be split into separate segments as it is overlapping and unconnected with the existing road network. Please note that OSM is not the correct place to upload individual tour suggestions, which seems to be the case for me give... |
| 2 | 2024-06-14 06:46 | HPBC ♦1 | Hi this track is an official track done by the municipality. I do not understand whay splitting this track into severals. this predestrian track is dirt road and a bit of asphalt road for the return.Best regards | |
| 3 | 2024-06-14 14:22 | ratrun | The splitting of the way into several segments is important as the route follows already mapped walking infrastructure. Otherwise ways get mapped twice, which needs to be avoided. As you say that this is an offical route then please create a route relation, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wik... | |
| 152565402 by AlhassaneDiallo @ 2024-06-12 00:21 | 1 | 2024-06-13 15:54 | ratrun | Hi,this import is of very bad quality as the new ways are not connected with the existing road network. See all the errors in the OSM routing view: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-12.77921&lat=9.98443&zoom=11&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=unconnec... |
| 152293672 by Onur Çetin @ 2024-06-05 15:27 | 1 | 2024-06-06 16:20 | ratrun | Hi,your edits here are of very poor quality. You are adding footways without any consideration on connectivity to the existing ways. This generates lots of error on the OSMI routing view. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=35.27465&lat=37.04146&zoom=16&baselaye... |
| 2 | 2024-06-09 06:12 | Onur Çetin ♦3 | Yes, I am aware of that and they are temporary and will be removed today since their job is complete. Those are supposed to be guideways so that the roads get repositioned more accurately. | |
| 3 | 2024-06-09 12:59 | ratrun | I saw that you removed all those ways. Thank you for that. But please do not create such superfluous bogus temporary changes in the future. Thank you! | |
| 4 | 2024-06-11 15:17 | Onur Çetin ♦3 | okay, understood. | |
| 151734378 by marial1mma @ 2024-05-23 17:20 | 1 | 2024-05-26 05:58 | ratrun | Hi and welcome to OSM!Please note that these new cycle ways need to be connected to the existing road network and shall not overlap. Your edits are of pretty low quality. Could you please improve that?thank you ratrun |
| 151276776 by vamougna dore @ 2024-05-13 17:04 | 1 | 2024-05-19 05:22 | ratrun | Hi,is there a special reason that you didn't tag the imported roads as highways? Or did you just forget? |
| 151016900 by ratrun @ 2024-05-07 15:36 | 1 | 2024-05-08 04:06 | fortera_au ♦1,063 | Hi, there is a turning circle there, removing valid info just to fix a QA "error" shouldn't happen. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151016900 |
| 2 | 2024-05-08 14:14 | ratrun | It looks as if you only checked osmcha and sow that nodes were deleted. But the turning circle was duplicated before and I only merged the two of them. So I really didn't remove anything. | |
| 3 | 2024-05-08 22:51 | fortera_au ♦1,063 | Ahh, thanks for explaining, yeah looked like you'd just removed the tag but I missed it marking it as not visible, sorry! | |
| 150734565 by Hannah_F_ @ 2024-05-01 05:53 | 1 | 2024-05-02 15:35 | ratrun | Hello,please stop duplicating highways just for tagging cycling information where separate cycling infrastructure is already mapped. I'm going to remove those duplications soon.thanksratrun |
| 2 | 2024-05-02 22:50 | Hannah_F_ ♦5 | Hello Ratrun,I'm not sure what you mean by "duplicating highways". Could you please explain further?I believe I have tagged significant changes in on-road cycling infrastructure (such as traffic on both sides of the cycling lane or the beginning and end of cycling lanes) as gu... | |
| 3 | 2024-05-03 05:10 | ratrun | Hello Hannah,here is one example: Your duplicated new way is this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1278694757 , but this road is already mapped here https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/671789980#map=17/-37.82372/144.67432 . There are three problems with this approach: the road is duplicated,... | |
| 4 | 2024-05-03 06:12 | Hannah_F_ ♦5 | Hi Ratrun,The road has not been duplicated. I have only added tags to the existing road section to describe the on-road cycling lane. This is not the same as the off-road cycle path that runs parallel to the road. The tags on the road feature are describing the cycling lane painted on th... | |
| 5 | 2024-05-03 06:37 | ratrun | Hi Hannah,thanks for your explanation. Now that you pointed me on it I could spot the cycle markings on the road surface via the Bing images. But you did duplicate the roads as explained above. Otherwise I wouldn't have spotted your changes. You can see it when you closely watch in JOSM by zo... | |
| 6 | 2024-06-04 08:48 | SpecializedRider ♦18 | I'm also finding this as well. For example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1278695637 has no history other than creation of the way by yourself and it's not in the correct relation anymore. I understand it might be unintentional but there's almost never a reason to delete data and t... | |
| 7 | 2024-06-04 09:25 | SpecializedRider ♦18 | Additional comment/proof: In the list below, you will see "v1" next to hundreds of items, which means it is a brand new item in this changeset. I'm not sure why this is occurring , but please find a different way of working to avoid this, otherwise future change sets will simply be re... | |
| 8 | 2024-12-04 00:00 | aharvey ♦1,694 | I've cleaned up a few of these and this one. It does appear Hannah you're working with the best intentions to improve the tagging, but the way you've made these changes has introduced data issues due to the duplication of the ways. In JOSM what you'll need to do is add a node to ... | |
| 149391127 by Zarraf Tajwar Adib @ 2024-03-31 13:42 | 1 | 2024-04-01 06:24 | ratrun | Please stop these low quality changes! The way classification is obviously wrong and the connectivity to the existing network is next to none existing! |
| 149172369 by MerlotC @ 2024-03-26 11:31 | 1 | 2024-03-30 09:52 | ratrun | Hi,can you please explain the purpose of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1266466625 ? It looks like you want to map some special parking facilities within a parking place. The tag highway=service is not the correct tag for this as the way is not connected to the rest of the road network. I'... |
| 148806376 by adamos @ 2024-03-18 09:28 | 1 | 2024-03-29 14:03 | ratrun | Hi, you changed https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/502811047 into highway=emergency_bay, which is a very unusual value for the highway tag. As ordinary routing engines do not handle this value you broke the routing for the ferry line. Please describe your motivation/source for this change because I w... |
| 148746183 by Tomonox @ 2024-03-16 18:58 Active block | 1 | 2024-03-18 06:29 | gscholz ♦2,778 | Hi Tomonox,If you are really sure this data exits in reality you should add a propper changeset comment and state the source of this data:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_commentsKind regardsGuido |
| 2 | 2024-03-26 18:53 | ratrun | As there was no response and this data obviously was fake I deleted it. | |
| 149077828 by BCNorwich @ 2024-03-24 08:03 | 1 | 2024-03-26 17:14 | ratrun | Hi,can you please re-check the junction of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/569135948? There are multiple connectivity issues which OSMI routing view complains about and it is very hard to fix this properly from remote using satellite images only. |
| 2 | 2024-03-26 17:53 | BCNorwich ♦4,846 | Hi Ratrun, Sorry about that problem, and thanks for letting me know about it. I've no idea how it happened, I would never have knowingly left things like that. Something strange happened because I couldn't revert the changeset, to many conflicts. Anyway It all looks good now, I've che... | |
| 148005486 by Cemre Korkmaz @ 2024-02-28 09:49 | 1 | 2024-02-29 16:32 | ratrun | Hi!your changes look very strange. I cannot believe that your changed tagging from waterway=stream to highway=secondary is correct. Can you please explain this change? What are your sources? |
| 2 | 2024-03-05 00:12 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,068 | Hi ratrun. For obvious mistakes like this that harm the map significantly please consider fixing it right away.This changeset has been reverted in full by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/148229370 | |
| 147341708 by backnblack @ 2024-02-11 19:57 | 1 | 2024-02-12 16:39 | ratrun | Hi,I deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1249258562#map=11/32.1151/-112.7755 because this way does not seem correct. It was not connected to the existing road network and did not make sense. |
| 146988277 by Tolani001 @ 2024-02-02 14:41 | 1 | 2024-02-02 15:29 | pitscheplatsch ♦5,391 | Hi, welcome to OSM.May we know the reason behind deleting several mapped streets, which are still visible in the satellite imagery? Thanks.More details about your changeset: https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=146988277#17/10.52464/7.44092 |
| 2 | 2024-02-03 16:53 | ratrun | This clearly seems to be a mistake. I think we should revert this | |
| 3 | 2024-02-04 16:15 | ratrun | I partially reverted this changeset with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147060146 | |
| 146747450 by ratrun @ 2024-01-27 15:02 | 1 | 2024-01-28 17:51 | wireguy ♦548 | Ratrun, can you review this change? It appears to have deleted a section of us 40 and also the relation 140774 (unclosed boundary Bates City relation). Thx. |
| 2 | 2024-01-28 18:25 | ratrun | Hi, I only connected unconnected segments. The deletion of the segments you mentioned was done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/146722280. | |
| 3 | 2024-01-28 18:43 | wireguy ♦548 | ok when you connected us 40, you didn't connect it fully. The josm validator would show the error. | |
| 146602006 by ratrun @ 2024-01-23 17:32 | 1 | 2024-01-23 22:18 | s222121 ♦33 | A Lyft fanboy is trying to take over Landing at Creekside using Service Roads? |
| 2 | 2024-01-24 17:03 | ratrun | I didn't check the history who created the duplicated service roads. Instead of creating additional duplicated ways the correct method would have been to verify that the already mapped highway=construction ways and change these into highway=residential in case that the construction work is over... | |
| 146412978 by ratrun @ 2024-01-18 16:46 | 1 | 2024-01-18 21:49 | felipeeugenio ♦2,337 | Hello, this was set as disused by a local mapper 3 months ago. Do you have further information about this? |
| 2 | 2024-01-19 16:08 | ratrun | Sorry that I messed this up. I do not have local knowlege. From remote the most likely oneway highway=primary situation which just ended without any connection was that this was an accident. Thanks for correcting the situation now! | |
| 3 | 2024-01-19 16:19 | felipeeugenio ♦2,337 | Ok, don´t worry. Thanks for the good attitude.regards | |
| 144215172 by SyedMuntazir @ 2023-11-19 16:34 | 1 | 2023-11-20 07:47 | BCNorwich ♦4,846 | Hi, You made lots of duplicated highways, which I;ve removed. Please take heed of and correct the warnings. above. There are reported 50 instances of un-connected highways, these are of no use to OSM in this manner.Regards Bernard. |
| 2 | 2023-11-20 07:48 | BCNorwich ♦4,846 | You've also tagged these tracks as residential highways which is obviously incorrect. | |
| 3 | 2023-11-20 14:17 | SyedMuntazir ♦1 | Hi Bernard,thank you for the feedback. I added the AI generated features from rapid editor and changed the tags of the features (streams) in bulk in JOSM. I also removed the conflicts in JOSM and connected the features. Somehow it did not synchronise the data from JOSM. Now, I deleted all change... | |
| 4 | 2023-11-25 06:44 | ratrun | There are still lots of useless ways in the middle of nowhere tagged as residential and unconnected. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=76.18536&lat=35.74031&zoom=8&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=unconnected_open_ends_1Please stop importing this usel... | |
| 5 | 2023-11-25 15:20 | SyedMuntazir ♦1 | I deleted all features in my datasets in Skurdu and the surroundings area. Could you please confirm it?Thank you for the introduction of the tools.geofabrik. | |
| 6 | 2023-11-26 05:54 | ratrun | Thanks for cleaning up the first part. Here there are still a lot of problems:https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=71.60584&lat=33.77498&zoom=11&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=unconnected_open_ends_1But the situation here looks a bit different. The AI ... | |
| 7 | 2024-03-17 08:55 | MANZILL PK ♦1 | Lot of way removed from Gilgit City Jutial area and Barmas area. Which were created earlier. Please do a manual validation before adding or remove any feature. | |
| 144105142 by ratrun @ 2023-11-16 17:12 | 1 | 2023-11-17 08:17 | zstadler ♦1,055 | Hello,Thank you for assisting in reverting the vandalism in Israel.As a result of the massive corruption and its co-existant with various revert attempts, a proper revert is hard to do.For example, this changeset deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/702077917/historywhich was previo... |
| 2 | 2023-11-17 15:13 | ratrun | I'm following the community forum and as you (or somebody else, I don`t remember) announced that the revert has finished I thought that now is the time again to re-start with improving the data. If this is not the case please announce the status in a clear way on the community forum. Thanks! | |
| 3 | 2023-11-17 15:38 | zstadler ♦1,055 | Thank you for your feedback! It seems I was too eager to claim success in the forum :-)I've tried to clarify the situation in this post:https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/vandalism-and-blocks-in-israel/105176/92Please let me know if it needs further improvements or refinements | |
| 4 | 2023-11-17 15:45 | ratrun | Thanks for the clarification. Just for your information: I did check the history before and to me user https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Charmscobb didn't look to be a vandal to me. | |
| 5 | 2023-11-17 16:48 | zstadler ♦1,055 | I agree. His edits fall into the category of "trying to re-map the vandalized area". | |
| 144106827 by ratrun @ 2023-11-16 18:06 | 1 | 2023-11-17 04:47 | MxxCon ♦3,358 | Hello.Could you please explain what kind of fix is this? What was wrong here? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144106827 |
| 2 | 2023-11-17 15:07 | ratrun | The kerb in the west of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1223987957 was not connected and marked as error by the OSM Inspector. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing | |
| 143165930 by ratrun @ 2023-10-26 14:43 | 1 | 2023-10-26 19:05 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | Please DO NOT apply "osmi routing view fixes" while the revert of this data is ongoing. |
| 2 | 2023-10-27 04:58 | ratrun | Sorry, I thought it was finshed. | |
| 141881782 by efi99 @ 2023-09-28 20:53 | 1 | 2023-09-29 15:37 | ratrun | Hi!Your edits for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/231954252, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1211671215 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1211671214#map=15/47.2350/16.6565 look very inaccurate as they are lacking connectivity to the existing road network. Please re-check and fix, otherwi... |
| 139081119 by xbarnada_nexus @ 2023-07-27 11:15 | 1 | 2023-09-13 05:59 | ratrun | Hello xbarnada_nexus!This changeset disconnected most of the ferry routes in the port of Barcelona from the road network. As a result the ferry routing from/to Barcelona is currently broken. Please check https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11071043689#map=19/41.36956/2.17710, this node is not c... |
| 2 | 2023-09-13 06:37 | xbarnada_nexus ♦1 | 1) This is the new starting point of this routes2) I don't know exactly where they enter/leave. I will check it | |
| 3 | 2023-09-29 15:17 | ratrun | I now added a service road in order to fix the currently broken ferry routing. Please verify if this is edit https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141918016 is correct and remove the "fixme" tag if you know better. It if this is correct for cars it is unclear to me what is the correct en... | |
| 4 | 2023-10-02 06:15 | xbarnada_nexus ♦1 | Thank you @ratrun, I'm not expert on ferry routes so I missed this part.Your changeset seems correct to me | |
| 141687304 by ratrun @ 2023-09-24 15:16 | 1 | 2023-09-27 10:31 | karussell ♦15 | Thanks for the fixes. Did the user goislandadventures corrupt the highway? If yes, did you report it to the DWG? |
| 2 | 2023-09-27 17:57 | ratrun | Hi,yes it was this user who destroyed it. And no, I did not report this vandalism. | |
| 141716166 by Jesse-N22 @ 2023-09-25 07:09 | 1 | 2023-09-25 15:13 | ratrun | Hi and welcome to OSM,can you please explain and improve your changes around https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1210497303? This tunnel and the connectivity to the existing ways do not make much sense. It seems that the newly created way should be oneways, but I doubt that it is possible to have ... |
| 2 | 2023-09-26 06:35 | Jesse-N22 ♦1 | There is a modification of the roundabout adding a tunnel under the roundabout. the satellite photo is not up to date. This is a change that came into force in July.It doesn't make sense to us either. But the work was done like this. | |
| 3 | 2023-09-27 17:39 | ratrun | Thanks! I now fixed the connectivity issues and added the (logical) oneway=yes tag, please re-check. | |
| 141703027 by SESMaps @ 2023-09-24 21:52 | 1 | 2023-09-25 11:00 | user_5359 ♦19,351 | Hello! Please have a look on http://www.osm.org/way/1210641025. what is the mean of the tagseditor_osm = SESMaps, consultoriases.comhighway = roadid = 4408notes = CLC_N3:Red vial, ferroviaria y terrenos asociadosPlease don‘t use osm_editor, this information is part of change set no... |
| 2 | 2023-09-25 15:39 | ratrun | Hi, please note that usually we don not map roads as areas. I therefore deleted all your imported road areas. | |
| 3 | 2023-09-25 20:04 | Wynndale ♦52 | This changeset uses the obsolete tag waterway=riverbank instead of the now-preferred natural=water water=river. Some newer renderers such as OpenStreetMap Americana don’t recognise it. | |
| 4 | 2023-09-28 07:10 | gscholz ♦2,778 | Hi SESMaps,due to your missing response, I have reverted this changeset to fix those issues.Guido | |
| 5 | 2023-10-15 16:04 | AngocA ♦194 | Hi. Thank you for the reversion, however, now we have thousands of orphan nodes. What can we do? | |
| 6 | 2023-10-15 17:08 | user_5359 ♦19,351 | Only the last set of changes was revolved from the import and not the predecessors that uploaded the nodes. Either one explores the changes that have only a short distance to the revolved data set and revolves them as well. The second possibility would be to load the area into JOSM and delete the no... | |
| 141552397 by GiadaAffaticati @ 2023-09-21 10:42 | 1 | 2023-09-23 04:37 | ratrun | Hi and welcome to OSM,Please note that we do not map routes as ways as this leads to duplication of ways. The correct method to map a route is using a route relation. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:routePlease note that this segment is already mapped with a two route relati... |
| 141185204 by N285SA @ 2023-09-13 00:42 | 1 | 2023-09-13 15:20 | ratrun | Hi and welcome to OSM,please note that your tagging of oneway=yes for a highway=pedestrian does not seem right. First highway=pedestrian is usually used for pedestrian zones. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian#Vehicle_access. The way in this area seem more like ordi... |
| 140722112 by ratrun @ 2023-09-02 14:36 | 1 | 2023-09-02 16:35 | Metzor ♦365 | Hi ratrun,How do you come to the conclusion that the service way (description=Zufahrt P 1) connects to the street Christian-Völter-Straße instead of the building tagged as parking garage named P1?The service way actually is a tunnel below the Hotel building, below Christian-V-str... |
| 2 | 2023-09-03 05:54 | ratrun | Hi,thanks for pointing this out. I was confused because I didn't see the undergroud parking and on esri the underground part was not visible.I fixed it by splitting, putting an layer=-1 on the segment and amenity=parking_entrance tag on the entrance node. | |
| 3 | 2023-09-03 06:05 | Metzor ♦365 | Hi,thanks a lot :-) | |
| 140370496 by Tabeude Frank bourel @ 2023-08-25 12:30 | 1 | 2023-08-25 14:23 | user_5359 ♦19,351 | Hello! Why are you uploading the data again (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1201949690/history)? Didn't you see that I deleted your duplicate entry and adapted the old existing route to the aerial photo (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/840644721). I see over 250 duplicate points again ... |
| 2 | 2023-08-26 05:07 | ratrun | I'm seeing multiple changesets from different users according the same pattern, just duplicating data, not responding to comments. I just informed the DWG and asked for a block. | |
| 3 | 2023-08-26 06:24 | Taya_S ♦978 | Seems like they started editing again. Changesets that add tens of thousands of tagless duplicate nodes and nothing else. I'm seeing 3 duplicate nodes on top of eachother in places. | |
| 4 | 2023-08-26 09:02 | user_5359 ♦19,351 | Hello (again)! What is the mean of this way: https://www.osm.org/way/1201948035? he is not part of a relation and have no tag | |
| 5 | 2023-08-28 16:12 | ratrun | I tried to revert this changeset via the JOSM reverter plugin, but did not succeed because of a hell of conflicts | |
| 6 | 2023-08-31 05:43 | Fizzie-DWG ♦31,875 | Reverted by DWG due to poor quality mappinghttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140617199 | |
| 140370560 by Tabeude Frank bourel @ 2023-08-25 12:31 | 1 | 2023-08-26 04:58 | ratrun | Could you please explain what you are doing here? To me it looks like you are just duplicating existing data. Please stop this import! |
| 2 | 2023-08-31 05:43 | Fizzie-DWG ♦31,875 | Reverted by DWG due to poor quality mappinghttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140617199 | |
| 140351797 by Monique Afana @ 2023-08-25 05:07 | 1 | 2023-08-25 15:20 | ratrun | Please stop these useless edits/import, your are just duplicating existing data!I therefore reverted this changeset. |
| 140267318 by Franckykamgue @ 2023-08-23 09:56 | 1 | 2023-08-24 04:40 | ratrun | This changeset produced a lot of duplicates, therefore I reverted it! Please stop this import! |
| 140078036 by lisaasil @ 2023-08-19 00:35 | 1 | 2023-08-19 15:14 | ratrun | Hi,Please turn this wayhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1199657559 into a route relation as it looks as this route using ordinary way segments. A highway=busway is only correct if this way is exclusively reserved for buses.See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:routes |
| 139603236 by Simtwelve @ 2023-08-08 09:27 | 1 | 2023-08-09 06:27 | ratrun | Hi and welcome to OSM!Please note that adding overlapping ways with the tag highway=busway is not the correct method for adding of a bus route. The correct method is using the existing way segments and putting those into the route relation.I deleted the superfluous highway=busway segments and ... |
| 2 | 2023-08-09 08:03 | Simtwelve ♦1 | Hi! Thank you for welcoming me.Oh, I understand now! Thanks for taking your time. | |
| 138098987 by lucarchi1 @ 2023-07-04 09:48 | 1 | 2023-07-06 15:50 | ratrun | Hi!Welcome to OSM!As your first edit this changeset is quite complicated and covers a very big area. Please create smaller changesets in the future. Additionally you drew overlapping, disconnected footways, without taking into regards much what was already mapped before. I would ask you fo... |
| 2 | 2023-07-22 15:10 | ratrun | As there is no response so far and you are still editing without obvious improvement I created a discussion on the OSM community forum, see here https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/added-footways-in-offida-from-a-new-user/101213It would be great if you could participate in the discussion here or... | |
| 138811850 by Catalin Strava @ 2023-07-21 12:46 | 1 | 2023-07-21 14:41 | ratrun | Hi!Please put your MTB routes into relations ( see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Cycle_routes_(also_mountain_bike) ) and don't put the oneway=yes on the individual segments. The advantage of using relations is that you can reference existing way segments without the need ... |
| 138071672 by ratrun @ 2023-07-03 16:18 | 1 | 2023-07-04 13:40 | monhiko ♦33 | Hello!Are you live in China? I have seen that you had mapped this area 21 hours ago based in Bing,but the Binshan Road you mapped should be primary all but not one is primary while another is tertiaty. And if you mapped by Bing, I want to know which year`s satellite image did you use? Thank you ! |
| 2 | 2023-07-05 16:11 | ratrun | Hello! I'm not from China and have just connected two ways according to Bing as shown in JOSM. Sorry, but I'm not familiar how to find out the date of a JOSM satellite image. | |
| 3 | 2023-07-16 02:39 | monhiko ♦33 | Hello!You says you mapped here based in Bing , but the Bing satelite image in this area(the Jingxi city) is only updated in 2018, here are many changes happened in 4 years,so I suggest that it this the best to map here by natives.Thank you! | |
| 137498809 by fart6969 @ 2023-06-19 04:07 | 1 | 2023-06-19 16:01 | ratrun | The new motorway you created is not visible on the imagery you used. Please provide the source of the changes. I doubt that this change is correct. |
| 2 | 2023-06-20 03:28 | Kento Kei ♦22 | given none of the motorways that were created are real, especially as someone who lives in the region, this is just.. blatantly horrible | |
| 136769915 by ratrun @ 2023-05-31 04:31 | 1 | 2023-06-19 10:22 | Frans S ♦9,798 | Thanks for your contribution to this project.This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator. I am sorry to say, but your mappings are often tagged with the wrong tag.Please read and follow the tagging info on this linked document.Decision tree, which tag to be used for roadshttps://drive... |
| 2 | 2023-06-19 15:41 | ratrun | Please note that I'm usually not changing way tags as long as they aren't obvious errors. I'm just work on way-connectivity. So to me it looks as if you haven't analyzed my changes deeply enough and intend your comments to the original author, but maybe I'm wrong. If you cou... | |
| 3 | 2023-06-20 10:18 | Frans S ♦9,798 | Hi. I tried to isolate the changes I made to your taggings, but that don't work. In general, I changed wrong taggings, like footway, living_street into path, residential, depending on what I can make of it.And yes, another mapper could tag those wrongly, and when you are the last who edited ... | |
| 137234561 by Bravo Mapper @ 2023-06-12 08:54 | 1 | 2023-06-13 16:02 | ratrun | Hi! You haven't connected this new path to the existing network and on your Esri World Imagery source which you used I cannot spot this path. It looks more like fictional mapping to me. Can you please either improve this mapping or revert it if this path does not exist?Thanks! |
| 136871431 by ratrun @ 2023-06-02 14:42 | 1 | 2023-06-04 20:55 | george1201 ♦225 | Hi ratrun,why did you delete way 1059978660? It is the way to a door (node 9738631561) in the noise_barrier wall. How can the door reached now without a way? |
| 2 | 2023-06-05 15:04 | ratrun | The way 1059978660 was not connected to the way 1178221564. I connect both ways via their shared node and merged them into a single way as the tags were identical. So no information was lost. | |
| 3 | 2023-06-05 20:29 | george1201 ♦225 | Oh sorry, I think that the previous CS 136850669 of W0lle is the reason for the loss of the connection. The way to the door was modified and the connection to the door was interrupted. See my comments to CS 136850669. Sorry for my false accusation. | |
| 136466579 by ratrun @ 2023-05-23 17:27 | 1 | 2023-05-23 23:45 | Baloo Uriza ♦2,106 | Not sure I understand the description or what changed. Could you be more specific? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136466579 |
| 2 | 2023-05-24 15:19 | ratrun | Please take a look on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing to get information about the Openstreetmap Inspector Routing view.The connectivity quality in the US is not the best as can be seen on e.g. https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-76.65727&lat=... | |
| 135985335 by Superadlen @ 2023-05-11 16:31 | 1 | 2023-05-13 04:34 | ratrun | Your edits are of very low quality. First you do not care about connectivity at all, see https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=3.04342&lat=36.53927&zoom=11&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=snap_points%2Cunconnected_open_ends_1 and on the other hand adding "... |
| 2 | 2023-05-14 04:33 | ratrun | As you continued without any response here the deepl french translation:Comme vous avez continué sans réponse voici la traduction en français :Vos modifications sont de très mauvaise qualité. D'une part, vous ne vous souciez pas du tout de la connectiv... | |
| 3 | 2023-05-16 09:47 | Superadlen ♦170 | Thank you for pointing that out. But don't worry, I know very well what to do.. I'm just still working on it.. When I finish, the end result will be good. | |
| 135818990 by ratrun @ 2023-05-07 16:27 | 1 | 2023-05-08 13:57 | monhiko ♦33 | 在把龙潭路和百丘桥连接的时候请做两个单向桥谢谢 |
| 2 | 2023-05-08 14:57 | ratrun | Sorry, I do not understand Chinese. Google translate gave me a translation result, but I do not understand which brige you mean by "Baiqiu Bridge" | |
| 135700889 by william bonya_ImportAccount @ 2023-05-04 13:08 | 1 | 2023-05-05 08:00 | gscholz ♦2,778 | Hi william bonya_ImportAccount,this changeset has created a lot of errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting ways:https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=38.88147&lat=-6.42468&zoom=15&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cs... |
| 2 | 2023-05-05 13:23 | ratrun | Please check all the errors/warnings JOSM gives you before uploading a new changeset. I'm sure you received a bunch of these! | |
| 3 | 2023-05-07 06:08 | gscholz ♦2,778 | Hi william bonya_ImportAccount, these errors still exist, can I get your feedback here?Guido | |
| 129938919 by ratrun @ 2022-12-10 16:24 | 1 | 2023-05-01 09:09 | javbw ♦37 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/583622305sidewalk is badly mapped. It seems very little care was put into mapping it properlyThe sidewalk *must* share nodes with all ways it crosses. this way shares ~50%, meaning it is useless for routing data. mapping this way. Please do not map sidewa... |
| 2 | 2023-05-01 09:22 | ratrun | Please check the detailed version information for that way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/583622305/history. I only fixed some of the errors which were there previously. If you want to address the original author who is to blame for bad editing you need to contact user neutan in this case. | |
| 3 | 2023-05-01 10:34 | javbw ♦37 | sorry for the error. I was mistaken ! =) | |
| 135435348 by ratrun @ 2023-04-27 16:25 | 1 | 2023-04-27 19:37 | cyton ♦217 | what'd i do wrong? did i miss to merge a driveway, and made a duplicate? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/135435348 |
| 2 | 2023-04-28 12:18 | ratrun | Yes, you created two overlapping ways: one tagged as highway=service service=driveway, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1058401874/history I kept the additional way which containes the additional width tag: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1165046320/historyNot a big deal! | |
| 3 | 2023-04-28 12:20 | ratrun | I just checked: as you are using JOSM it should have given a warning before the upload, do you remember it popping up? | |
| 4 | 2023-04-28 12:54 | cyton ♦217 | Yes i remember the warning.My workflow is kind of awkward, though.I merged all others, and must have missed this one.I should orobably write a diary entry about how i did this with josm -> vespucci -> josm | |
| 134847414 by Abou kachongo jr_ImportAccount @ 2023-04-13 07:02 | 1 | 2023-04-15 05:51 | ratrun | Hi,I'm following your edits via the errores OSMI routing view reports. Most of your edits do make sense, but can you explain why and how you deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/681959350 ? without deleting the nodes? I discovered this pattern a couple of times in your edits, please expl... |
| 134620271 by RubenMarc @ 2023-04-07 14:57 | 1 | 2023-04-08 05:07 | ratrun | Hi,you uploaded a gpx track without any manual integration into the existing data. Please don't do this, it is not what we want in Openstreetmap. We are no touring portal. The correct method is to create a cycle route relation using the existing segments, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wi... |
| 2 | 2023-04-20 08:21 | gscholz ♦2,778 | Hi RubenMarc,this error still exits, can you please fix this overlapping way?https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-3.80902&lat=40.94244&zoom=14&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&opacity=0.66&overlays=duplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges_areas... | |
| 122951426 by Dinaky @ 2022-06-28 10:54 | 1 | 2022-06-29 16:09 | ratrun | Hello! Can you please explain what you tried with these changesets? It looks as you intentionally duplicated a lot of ways which are now found as errors by openstreetmap inspector tool: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=47.84446&lat=-22.10744&zoom=11&overlays=snap_... |
| 2 | 2022-07-05 09:57 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | The DWG received a reply from Dinaky.They had a connection problem and are now trying to solve the situation.If this is not happening by the end of this week, the DWG shall revert the relevant changesets.Marc Zoutendijk OpenStreetMap Foundation Data Working Group | |
| 3 | 2023-03-27 11:01 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,593 | Have they replied?Problems mentioned in https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6117 are still not resolved | |
| 4 | 2023-03-27 11:11 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | User didn't edit the last 9 months... | |
| 5 | 2023-03-27 12:50 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,593 | they could still email/PM/write somewhere else...And given "If this is not happening by the end of this week, the DWG shall revert the relevant changesets" I think the plan was to revert edits if they would not reply?(or maybe it was done and remaining debris can be cleaned and del... | |
| 6 | 2023-03-27 15:14 | ratrun | From what I remember that user has fixed the mentioned duplicates. You can also see this in his latest changeset comments here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Dinaky/history | |
| 132264388 by ratrun @ 2023-02-08 16:11 | 1 | 2023-02-13 04:01 | adiatmad ♦445 | Hi ratrun, hope you are doing well.You added layer=-1 here (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/135625570) but I only see from Maxar imagery it is flat, no underground, etc. Do you want to share your knowledge?Thanks |
| 2 | 2023-02-13 17:06 | ratrun | Hi,What I did is that I merged way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/135625587/history where the "layer=-1" was already present. I didn't notice this tag when I merged. Now I removed this tag, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/132500263 . Thanks for detecting this! | |
| 132315124 by ratrun @ 2023-02-09 16:01 | 1 | 2023-02-10 12:36 | DaveF ♦1,562 | Why have you removed this kissing gate?https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10562962453/history |
| 2 | 2023-02-10 14:28 | ratrun | I removed this one because it was there twice. See the remaining node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/453231102 | |
| 3 | 2023-02-10 14:38 | DaveF ♦1,562 | Got you - Thanks. | |
| 132028714 by ENGELBERT MODO @ 2023-02-03 06:30 | 1 | 2023-02-04 09:13 | ratrun | Please stop uploading of duplicated ways, you are messing up the data: See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=11.66382&lat=3.68968&zoom=11&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=snap_points%2Cunconnected_open_ends_1 |
| 2 | 2023-02-05 12:45 | mueschel ♦6,564 | I just reverted another 60,000 objects of yours that are plain duplicates of existing ones.Please NEVER load any data into JOSM without using the "Download" function from the menu. NEVER load data from files and upload them! | |
| 131659012 by fernand ed @ 2023-01-24 16:17 | 1 | 2023-01-25 16:17 | ratrun | Your recent changesets duplicate a huge amount of existing ways. Please stop uploading already existing data!See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=10.26354&lat=6.05830&zoom=11&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=snap_points%2Cunconnected_open_ends_1 |
| 131440214 by Momha Mbock Emmanuel @ 2023-01-18 22:28 | 1 | 2023-01-19 16:30 | ratrun | Hi,can you please explain what you did here?You have duplicated/tripplicated a lots of ways in a youple of huge changesets.Please check all the errors at https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=13.94183&lat=4.80911&zoom=11&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overla... |
| 2 | 2023-01-19 18:55 | mueschel ♦6,564 | I'm reverting the full set of 420k objects, almost all of them are duplicates of existing ones.Momha, please always check before uploading how many objects will be changed / added and if this fits with the work you actually did. And: never try to load any data from a file to OSM and upload ... | |
| 131229224 by martyschaer @ 2023-01-13 13:02 | 1 | 2023-01-14 09:20 | ratrun | Hi,why did you remove the highway tag from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/211461813? This does not look right. Please check. |
| 2 | 2023-01-14 17:06 | martyschaer ♦1 | Not intentional. I've fixed it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131272188 | |
| 130991886 by device25 @ 2023-01-07 18:24 | 1 | 2023-01-08 08:33 | ratrun | Hi device25!Can you please describe your source? This activation of a new highway=primary looks rather unrealistic to me as there is already another primary, which is not connected. |
| 2 | 2023-01-09 08:41 | device25 ♦5 | Hi! Yesterday I drove along this section of the road, it is already open and accessible to traffic. I'm not sure about the correct type of road, it can be corrected | |
| 3 | 2023-01-09 16:58 | ratrun | Did you verify the section with a GPS? Please check against the arial image. What happened with the previously existing "highway=primary" https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1102903285?If this old road still exists, are there a couple of bridges or is the new road connected with juncti... | |
| 4 | 2023-01-10 17:07 | device25 ♦5 | Yes, I specifically recorded this section of the path and loaded gpx. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/device25/traces/5888784I do not know in what condition the old road is now, I was already driving along a new section without any exits. All bridges have already been built | |
| 5 | 2023-01-11 10:23 | gscholz ♦2,778 | Hi all,the eastern end of this new road currently is not connected to the old D555, so it cannot be used by routing software:https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=27.43370&lat=39.78749&zoom=15&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges%2Cduplicated... | |
| 6 | 2023-01-13 12:01 | device25 ♦5 | Fix it herehttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131226619I saw Maxar images, but I was already driving along this section )) | |
| 10303436 by ratrun @ 2012-01-05 17:41 | 1 | 2022-12-15 12:25 | kuhni74 ♦358 | ist noch rekonstruierbar, woher die Bezeichnung "L19" für die Nochalmstraße her ist? Siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3478036 |
| 2 | 2022-12-15 12:25 | kuhni74 ♦358 | Nockalmstraße hätte das heißen sollen | |
| 3 | 2022-12-15 16:23 | ratrun | Laut https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30760869/history habe ich das vor 11 Jahren aus den plan.at Daten so übernommen.Erinnern kann ich mich da dran natürlich nicht mehr. | |
| 129092785 by Alvine-Grâce @ 2022-11-18 16:04 | 1 | 2022-11-19 10:23 | ratrun | Hello!Can you please improve your mapping such that you connect the nodes to the existing highways? Currently you are producing a lot of unconnectd way errors. Please see https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=13.57497&lat=4.28147&zoom=8&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&... |
| 2 | 2022-11-19 10:27 | ratrun | DeepL French transolation:Bonjour !Pouvez-vous s'il vous plaît améliorer votre cartographie de sorte que vous connectez les nœuds aux autoroutes existantes ? Actuellement, vous produisez beaucoup d'erreurs de voies non connectées. Veuillez consulter https://... | |
| 128576490 by Dhanushka Marasinghe @ 2022-11-07 02:15 | 1 | 2022-11-08 17:18 | ratrun | Hi,why did you modify the "highway=trunk" into "highway=motorway"? As you performed this change in JOSM you should have noticed that motorways are default oneways. I doubt that all these changed segments are oneways, this does not make sense. Please check. |
| 127922485 by ratrun @ 2022-10-22 13:30 | 1 | 2022-10-23 11:26 | DaveF ♦1,562 | Why have you split a public footpath leaving an undesignated section:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/841354437What OSMI rule flagged it as a problem? |
| 2 | 2022-10-23 13:22 | ratrun | Thanks for detecting my fault. OSMI complained about unconnected ways. I improved the modification in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/127957244, please check now. | |
| 127290809 by Ansgar77 @ 2022-10-10 09:22 | 1 | 2022-10-13 17:43 | ratrun | Can you explain what you have done here? This changeset looks pretty strange and I would suggest a revert. |
| 2 | 2022-10-14 14:55 | Ansgar77 ♦3 | Yes, you’re right. I had unexplainable problems with Go Map. I couldn’t see my changes in the map…I’ lll revert it when I’m back home next week!Thank you for your hint!Ansgar | |
| 3 | 2022-10-14 15:12 | ratrun | Thanks for responding. Now that you explained that the changeset was buggy I reverted it, see changest 127531244.BRratrun | |
| 4 | 2022-10-15 16:18 | Ansgar77 ♦3 | Ok, thank you ratrun and sorry for the trouble!Ansgar | |
| 125480994 by ratrun @ 2022-08-28 14:43 | 1 | 2022-10-05 18:09 | messpert ♦65 | You seem to have added a higway tag to a node. Why? |
| 2 | 2022-10-06 14:56 | ratrun | Looks that I merged node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9738428710/history where this was already present.I just deleted those two tags now. | |
| 126595394 by Dino Michelini @ 2022-09-24 19:46 | 1 | 2022-09-25 13:32 | ratrun | What happened with this waterway=ditch: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/473778221The change does not look correct. Could you please explain? |
| 2 | 2022-09-26 07:08 | Dino Michelini ♦321 | Thanks for reporting, I made the corrections. Unfortunately I was very tired having mapped the flood in the Marche (https://osmit-tm4.wmcloud.org/projects/100/) ... I confused the geometries. | |
| 125759946 by ratrun @ 2022-09-04 06:04 | 1 | 2022-09-04 20:33 | Msiipola ♦245 | Vad jag se har väg väster om Vällingsjön har raderats av dig. Vägen finns i Trafikverkets lager, NVDB och syns på Lantmäteriets ortofoto. Är detta ett misstag? Om så behöver vägen återställas. |
| 2 | 2022-09-05 07:18 | Msiipola ♦245 | The road west of lake Vällingsjön has been deleted by. This is an error. The road exist according to Swedish national databas NVDB. This changeset should be reverted. | |
| 3 | 2022-09-05 07:19 | Msiipola ♦245 | ...deleted by you... | |
| 4 | 2022-09-05 14:45 | ratrun | Sorry, I deleted too much of an overlapping track. Fixed with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/125818697 | |
| 124327122 by ratrun @ 2022-08-01 06:05 | 1 | 2022-08-01 08:52 | voiden ♦16 | hi, may I ask what this description means? thanks --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124327122 |
| 2 | 2022-08-01 08:58 | ratrun | See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing | |
| 121507260 by Mario Fabrizi @ 2022-05-26 07:40 | 1 | 2022-05-30 17:15 | ratrun | Hi!You have duplicated a lot of existing ways, Please stop uploading whole gps files and making a relation out of these with a single element only. If you want to map hiking relations you need to split the exisiting segments and put these segments as members into your hiking relation.Additio... |
| 121306680 by ratrun @ 2022-05-22 07:24 | 1 | 2022-05-22 16:58 | Msiipola ♦245 | Flera vägar i området är satta till residential, men bör vara cykel/service., eftersom dessa vägar inte har namn. Till skillnad från vägarna norr om detta område. |
| 2 | 2022-05-25 12:21 | Msiipola ♦245 | Jag har nu ändrat samtliga dessa till cykel/gång-vägar | |
| 3 | 2022-05-25 14:50 | ratrun | Sorry, I don't speak Swedish. Please note that my changes only connected some unconnected nodes and that I do not have local area knowledge such that I could say anything to the classification of the ways. | |
| 120880532 by ConstantinoTrinta @ 2022-05-12 10:15 | 1 | 2022-05-13 13:33 | ratrun | Hi,please stop tagging each tree with a name. The name tag is not foreseen to contain the species of the tree. See the bad new rendereing! |
| 119627416 by ratrun @ 2022-04-12 15:39 | 1 | 2022-04-13 13:41 | julcnx ♦404 | hey, I appreciate your work fixing routing issues but you are not helping if the previous mapper disconnected both road segments because maybe there is a wall in between, and you come and put them back together remotely without any local knowledge. I have suggested the user use noexit=yes because m... |
| 2 | 2022-04-13 15:53 | ratrun | Yes, in case that nodes comes close to a way it is the correct way to enter noexit=yes at the node if someone knows the situation. From remote it is sometimes hard to detect if there is a barrier in between or not, so sometimes I cannot avoid errors by detecting from the image. Sorry for this. | |
| 117597297 by Jose Campos Fernández @ 2022-02-19 09:59 | 1 | 2022-02-22 16:25 | ratrun | Hi!Could you please check https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1033177622 ? It does not seem correct as this way isn't connected to the rest of the network, partially overlaps existing ways and is not visible at all on the PNOA imaginary which you referenced as source. |
| 2 | 2022-03-24 19:33 | Jordi MF ♦1,625 | Efectivamente, además de mapear calles y rotondas inexistentes, por favor, no elimines tramos tan grandes de vías que están bien mapeadas (como los caminos) porque tenemos que mantener el historial de lo que han mapeado anteriores usuarios. Entiendo que lo has hecho porque esos ... | |
| 117445375 by Raul_Olldashi @ 2022-02-15 17:32 | 1 | 2022-02-19 10:12 | ratrun | Hi! I see that this is your first changeset. Please check https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/286068840, this doesn`t seem correct as it is not connected to the rest of the road network. In the north it is crossing the train without any visual indication on Maxar imaginary.Also the tagging highway... |
| 116745683 by DerKartograph2 @ 2022-01-29 14:09 | 1 | 2022-01-31 18:39 | ratrun | Can you please check your new way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025833722#map=20/31.97154/35.88667&layers=CWhere does this tunnel end? |
| 116728565 by kramd @ 2022-01-29 01:35 | 1 | 2022-01-31 12:17 | alyaa_hossam ♦21 | Hello Life-is-the-truth,I noticed you added many ways that didn't match any satellite images and changed the classification for ways, could you provide us with the source you edited?like:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025707723https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/726173821/historyhtt... |
| 2 | 2022-01-31 18:28 | ratrun | Additionaly the new motorways are not connected correctly and the highway classification as highway=motorway for the links is incorrect. | |
| 3 | 2022-02-06 21:00 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5665Marc ZoutendijkOpenStreetMap FoundationData Working Group | |
| 4 | 2022-02-06 23:23 | marczoutendijk_repair ♦11,120 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117097348, 117094894 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for creating fake edits and vandalising OSM. | |
| 116392554 by ratrun @ 2022-01-20 16:19 | 1 | 2022-01-26 10:38 | jmty8 ♦69 | Hello ratrun, can you check if Rue des Magnolias and Boulevard Louis Campi should be connected? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116392554 |
| 2 | 2022-01-26 16:51 | ratrun | Sorry, I cannot answer your question. I only reverted obvious errors. I would ask you to raise this question in changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116228316#map=16/41.9418/8.7522 | |
| 114093444 by Benedcto Adamu @ 2021-11-22 11:07 | 1 | 2021-11-23 16:57 | ratrun | Can you please describe the purpose of the change in more detail? This changeset is duplicating a couple of ways, resulting in OSM inspector to detect lots of errors. See http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=39.25848&lat=-6.80448&zoom=14&overlays=snap_points,unconnected_o... |
| 2 | 2021-11-25 14:52 | martin-kokos ♦32 | I agree with revert --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114093444 | |
| 3 | 2021-11-25 17:49 | ratrun | This changeset is not the only one which introduced lots of duplications. I tried to revert this changeset via the JOSM reverter, but there are a couple of of more changesets involved, e.g. 113943511. This seems to be an issue for the data working group. | |
| 4 | 2021-11-25 18:16 | ratrun | I sent a mail to the data workinggroup and asked for their help. | |
| 5 | 2021-11-26 13:12 | tonny john ♦1 | The team is working on cleaning this data sets, we are hoping to update everything in the mid of coming week @Benedcto Adamu @kombe1207 | |
| 6 | 2021-11-26 13:51 | ratrun | @tonny John: Thanks for joining the discussion. Can you please answer my initial question first: What are all these changes marked as "#SWM Field Survey 2021" about? To me this looks as like a bad import which is not aligned with the OSM rules for an import. What are the sources for all t... | |
| 7 | 2021-11-26 14:52 | Benedcto Adamu ♦2 | We conducted a ground survey under a project called Solid Waste Management (SWM) of 2021,and we always use the source to add a project name but we can discuss if this is appropriate to be added or can be removed?We are flexible on updating this as we are still working on cleaning the data into t... | |
| 8 | 2021-11-26 14:53 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | After I had blocked Benedcto Adamu with a zero-hour block: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5475, he contacted me and told me there had been a mistake with the imports. I asked him again to reply on this changeset.Marc Zoutendijk OpenStreetMap Foundation Data Working Group \... | |
| 9 | 2021-11-26 14:56 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | And just after I typed my message ^ I see that Benedcto Adamu has replied here. | |
| 10 | 2021-11-26 15:34 | ratrun | Thanks Benedcto Adamu for answering. It would be good if you described in more detail how it could happen that you imported so many duplicates in such short amount of time. I mean how did you manage this technically? I see that you uploaded your changes via JOSM, but where did you get the data from?... | |
| 11 | 2021-11-26 16:49 | Benedcto Adamu ♦2 | The data were collected from ground by using community engagements and the Mappers trained under OMDTZ, and Resilience Academy,so we have a big data that needed to be updated into osm regarding the area of interest(AOI).So we noticed the errors before and we are looking forward to erase all the... | |
| 112338952 by Marcello Rolli @ 2021-10-10 15:40 | 1 | 2021-11-20 16:54 | ratrun | The new Strada Comunale Castel Pagano looks suspicous. It is not connected in the south and according to mapillary (from 2016) there is no such tertiary road, please check. What are you sources? This does not become clear from your changesset comment. |
| 113532149 by ratrun @ 2021-11-08 17:45 | 1 | 2021-11-09 06:19 | pyrog ♦335 | Hi,Why did you delete these path in forest ?Your changeset comment is not clear.These path are cutlines but also path with sometimes routes.Could you reverse your changeset please ?Best regards,Yves --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OS... |
| 2 | 2021-11-09 16:56 | ratrun | Hi,If you look in detail you will see that I only deleted overlapping duplicated ways. At least one of your new ways is still there. | |
| 97038799 by ratrun @ 2021-01-06 10:05 | 1 | 2021-10-15 14:31 | Myazyk ♦574 | А чому ти видалив (-ла) вулицю Верхній Кінець у селі Хащів? |
| 2 | 2021-10-15 14:32 | Myazyk ♦574 | І вулицю Шумина для чого ти знищив (-ла)? | |
| 3 | 2021-10-15 14:49 | ratrun | Sorry, I don't understand your language. My changes corrected overlapping ways. | |
| 4 | 2021-10-18 19:45 | Myazyk ♦574 | You don't need to make changes (edit) in the area you don't know!In the village Khashchiv you deleted 2 streets: Shumyna and Horishniy Kinets. Why did you do that? Please return the names of the streets in the village! | |
| 5 | 2023-04-01 13:36 | Myazyk ♦574 | Hey! Where is Shumyna Street and Verkhniy Kinets Street? | |
| 110416512 by ratrun @ 2021-08-29 15:06 | 1 | 2021-09-01 17:12 | Msiipola ♦245 | Anslutning av E18 till rondellen är felaktigt länkad. Jag antar det var gjort av dig då du är sist i historiken, efter min föregående rättning. Länkningen var tidigare ok och jag har nu ändrat tillbaka så att det inte blir valideringsfel. |
| 2 | 2021-09-02 16:59 | ratrun | Sorry, I don't understand Swedish and Google translate does not provide an reasonable translation. Anyhow it looks as if you corrected the problem you found. Thank you. | |
| 110574102 by ratrun @ 2021-09-01 15:37 | 1 | 2021-09-02 11:40 | julcnx ♦404 | Hi! I am curious what is OSMI router? and what was the exact problem? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110574102 |
| 2 | 2021-09-02 16:54 | ratrun | See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing for a description what OSMI is.The problem was unconnected nodes. | |
| 3 | 2021-09-02 17:01 | julcnx ♦404 | Thanks! --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110574102 | |
| 110316548 by Pavel Chowdhury @ 2021-08-27 05:04 | 1 | 2021-08-30 16:48 | ratrun | Adding of the toll=yes tag is one thing, but why did you remove the highway=motorway_link tag? |
| 109101479 by Lisa Viljoen @ 2021-08-03 15:26 | 1 | 2021-08-08 14:02 | mueschel ♦6,564 | Hi,something went wrong here. You added many roads on top of already existing ones. Please have a look and clean this up. |
| 2 | 2021-08-11 14:55 | ratrun | The same is true for changeset 109101492. I think both changesets should be reverted. I tried it using the JSOM reverter plugin, but there are already a couple of conflicts. | |
| 3 | 2021-08-11 15:37 | mueschel ♦6,564 | Yes, this was essentially one upload, but it got split because it exceeded 10000 objects.A full revert seems difficult and also not necessary I think. There are plenty additions that are ok. I'll remove the major part of overlapping roads, and then we have to manually check the remaining e... | |
| 4 | 2021-08-11 16:15 | mueschel ♦6,564 | I think the most problematic things are fixed now, but still some work with the validator to fix unconnected / overlapping ways is necessary. | |
| 108260353 by ratrun @ 2021-07-19 14:53 | 1 | 2021-07-25 11:02 | Dino Michelini ♦321 | hi, in the changes you broke the route 12989647. Please rebuild the route. Thank you |
| 2 | 2021-07-25 13:43 | ratrun | Thank you, fixed it in changeset 108565987. | |
| 106666695 by MrRapsi @ 2021-06-20 13:44 | 1 | 2021-06-21 15:17 | ratrun | This changesset looks like a bad import, see http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=14.78493&lat=48.24178&zoom=8&overlays=snap_points,unconnected_open_ends_1#Besides that the tag Shape_Leng looks pretty strange. Please correct, or otherwise I would like to revert it. |
| 2 | 2021-06-21 17:24 | karussell ♦15 | Yes, please revert this and make sure that there are no duplicate nodes. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/karussell/diary/396620 | |
| 3 | 2021-06-21 17:26 | karussell ♦15 | Currently planet has nearly 500 duplicate nodes due to this single changeset. | |
| 4 | 2021-06-21 18:09 | ratrun | I have reported the user to the data working group as it is multiple changesets which need to be reverted, It is all the changessets tagged with "new paths". I believe that they have a script via which these can easily be reverted. | |
| 5 | 2021-06-22 06:43 | karussell ♦15 | Thanks! | |
| 6 | 2021-06-23 08:37 | MrRapsi ♦1 | Hey guys, I'm here. I uploaded all these new linees through JOSM.I put up a lot of hard work in sampling these new roads and paths so I think it is better to fix the changeset rather than reverting it.Is it possible to remove the tag 'Shape_leng' in JOSM? | |
| 7 | 2021-06-23 14:54 | ratrun | I think that all the new paths need to be reverted. I could not find your import on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue, it looks there was no discussion in advance about it. Where does this data come from, this was not even documented in the changesets.Please don't manuall... | |
| 8 | 2021-07-11 09:46 | zstadler ♦1,055 | @ratrun, @MrRapsi,Is there any progress in resolving this issue?What did the DWG decide about it? | |
| 9 | 2021-07-11 11:26 | zstadler ♦1,055 | Here is a list of issues related (primarily) to the "new paths" changesets by MrRaspi:- Duplicate nodes in a way:http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=34.29645&lat=31.39732&zoom=10&overlays=duplicate_node_in_way- Unconnected nodes:http://tools.geofab... | |
| 10 | 2021-07-11 14:48 | ratrun | I was in contact with the DWG last week. I had the impression that they will revert the changes. Unfortunately they didn't promise a date for it. User SomeoneElse said that he is still busy with other big reverts. | |
| 11 | 2021-07-11 20:32 | woodpeck ♦2,421 | MrRapsi, it is unfortunate that you have spent a lot of time with this but we still have to remove the data, it is buggy in many different ways which are documented above. I will deal with this now. For future imports, please discuss the data sources and processes with the community beforehand to av... | |
| 106723146 by ratrun @ 2021-06-21 15:00 | 1 | 2021-06-22 07:37 | PT-53 ♦3,642 | Hallo ratrun,Du hast in diesem Änderungssatz einige von "Ein Engener" neu eingezeichnete Wege gelöscht.Warum?Und hast Du "Ein Engener" entspr. informiert?Fragende Grüße |
| 2 | 2021-06-22 14:48 | ratrun | Die Wege waren doppelt (übereinanderliegend), deshalb hab ich einen davon jeweils gelöscht. | |
| 3 | 2021-06-22 15:03 | PT-53 ♦3,642 | Danke für die Rückmeldung.Wäre es da nicht sinnvoll. den Verursacher zu informieren? Lernfähig bzw. lernwillig (Fehlerkorrekturen) scheint er aber nicht besonders zu sein, leider.Grüße | |
| 4 | 2021-06-22 15:24 | ratrun | Es macht keinen Sinn den user zu informieren. Es passiert hin und wieder, dass ways doppelt hochgeladen werden. Der user kann da zu 99% nichts dafür. | |
| 5 | 2021-06-22 16:17 | PT-53 ♦3,642 | Ich habe gerade mal einen highway "verdoppelt" und der JOSM-Validator hat das leider nicht bemängelt. Blöd. | |
| 105612607 by ratrun @ 2021-05-31 09:35 | 1 | 2021-06-01 00:05 | Lee Carré ♦665 | Care to explain what was done, here? It's not clear from the set's data. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105612607 |
| 2 | 2021-06-01 07:56 | ratrun | I merged a not connected node of two ways and two separate ways which had the same tags. | |
| 3 | 2021-07-01 03:44 | Lee Carré ♦665 | Ah, good.I wondered if it might have been related to the new bus-lane road-layout change.Kudos for hunting down duplicates. | |
| 105415752 by Carinegg @ 2021-05-27 09:57 | 1 | 2021-05-28 13:58 | ratrun | You have created multiple overlapping additional superflous ways just to include a name for the highway. Please stop doeing this. Instead utilise the existing ways and create the new name tag for them. Please try to correct the errors you have produced.Thank you! |
| 105437687 by miscosm @ 2021-05-27 16:31 | 1 | 2021-05-28 09:02 | ratrun | Kannst Du bitte den neuen Parkplatzweg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/947825356 überprüfen? Dieser sieht komisch aus, weil er nicht mit dem existierenden Straßennetz verbunden ist und durch Häuser durchgeht.Danke! |
| 2 | 2021-05-28 09:35 | miscosm ♦25 | Danke, das muss ein Verschiebe-Unfall gewesen sein. | |
| 104797893 by fench_hobbit @ 2021-05-17 05:43 | 1 | 2021-05-22 09:00 | ratrun | Hi,you have created a strange way crossing houses. Are you sure that your change is correct, this looks very strange. Thank you. |
| 104365641 by vrmap @ 2021-05-08 13:32 | 1 | 2021-05-22 08:47 | ratrun | Hi,here and on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/104390281 you seem to just have updated the GPX data of a cycle route without integrating it into the rest of the existing OSM data. This is not a good idea as it leads to to an unconnect highway. The correct method would be to create a cyclew... |
| 92060764 by SiiG @ 2020-10-06 16:33 | 1 | 2020-10-07 15:15 | ratrun | Your new way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/856043370 runs parallel, but is not connected correctly with the existing way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/288064698. As you are the last author of both ways I'm asking you to delete one of it. Thank you. |
| 2 | 2020-10-08 07:01 | SiiG ♦13 | The problem has been corrected.Thank you | |
| 3 | 2020-10-08 16:05 | ratrun | I'm sorry to bother you again. There are still both ways in the database. One of it should be deleted, because I cannot believe that two ways (one track, one residential are that close and run in parallel. According to way 288064698 it looks as this way has two names, so the way should become ... | |
| 4 | 2020-10-15 12:14 | SiiG ♦13 | The problem has been corrected.The relation 11547184 named "Chemin de Tresques" includes 4 residential type paths :https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11547184 | |
| 90795884 by ratrun @ 2020-09-12 14:28 | 1 | 2020-09-12 15:19 | wurzelast ♦1,560 | Welcher Fehler wurde da im Inspector genau behoben? Die gelöschten Wege/Fließgewässer (!) wurden erst vor kurzem neu eingepflegt? |
| 2 | 2020-09-12 15:44 | ratrun | Ich habe Routing Fehler von http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=14.78493&lat=48.24178&zoom=8&overlays=snap_points,unconnected_open_ends_1 ausgebessert.Offensichtlich gab es den Weg doppelt. | |
| 3 | 2020-09-12 16:15 | wurzelast ♦1,560 | Der Link bezieht sich auf eine komplett andere Stelle, deine Changesets heißen alle gleich, keine Chance da irgendwas zuzordnen. Ich bin draußen :-) | |
| 90709585 by ratrun @ 2020-09-10 14:52 | 1 | 2020-09-10 15:30 | wurzelast ♦1,560 | Da sollte vermutlich der Straßentyp geändert werden? |
| 2 | 2020-09-11 14:06 | ratrun | Der Typ war schon gesetzt, ich hab es jetzt aber geändert auf "service". | |
| 90421563 by ratrun @ 2020-09-04 14:48 | 1 | 2020-09-07 07:50 | SekeRob ♦1,433 | Hi, any reason you reversed the one way direction north side and removed the traffic lights from the new situation of the brand new plant situated south of that SS602 section? The entrance road to that plant also has a traffic light but could not remember it was plant side or at the traffic island w... |
| 2 | 2020-09-07 14:57 | ratrun | These changes were already present from changes of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90291739 . I only connected the track with the way, see the history: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/843445757/history | |
| 3 | 2020-09-07 17:18 | SekeRob ♦1,433 | Strange, as I was the one who originally drew the road separation and later added the traffic lights, but I did find out today that my web browser does not fully clear the cache on exit and then on next visit pulls stale OSM images. Anyway momentarily it looks fine but for the 3rd traffic light I sa... | |
| 88042583 by LorenzoBassi_SICAI_Team @ 2020-07-15 16:29 | 1 | 2020-07-16 16:18 | ratrun | What is the purpose of this huge changeset? You seem to have duplicated a lot of ways on purpose. Can you explaing what the purpose of a tag "osm_id" and "full_id" is? See also http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=14.78493&lat=48.24178&zoom=8&overlays=... |
| 2 | 2020-07-17 14:26 | Alecs01 ♦1,423 | @ratrun are you gonna revert it? This one needs to be reverted as well https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88042179 | |
| 3 | 2020-07-17 16:27 | ratrun | I have reverted both changesets now. | |
| 4 | 2020-07-17 18:16 | Alecs01 ♦1,423 | Thanks! | |
| 87662626 by ratrun @ 2020-07-07 15:19 | 1 | 2020-07-07 16:17 | WalkerB ♦80 | Dear Ratrun,I see your imagery source is Bing. Bing imagery for Afghanistan is very very old. You may want to check Maxar Premium for the newest imagery.Best,Walker |
| 2 | 2020-07-08 14:47 | ratrun | Thank you for the hint! | |
| 84077766 by orrmany @ 2020-04-24 19:09 | 1 | 2020-05-01 08:58 | ratrun | Hello!It looks as your intention withhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7443080660 was to map a "roadblock", which probably is some barrier. But you tagged this with "noexit=yes", which does not seem right in this case. As you additionally didn't connect this node proper... |
| 82831309 by ratrun @ 2020-03-30 15:15 | 1 | 2020-04-11 23:49 | Polarbear-repair ♦690 | Hi ratrun, could you kindly explain what you mean with "osmi routing view fixes" in this particular changeset? It is hard to guess since you seem to give the same comment in all your changesets. I had to revert this CS since it was creating conflicts when reverting fiction from 8274923... |
| 2 | 2020-04-12 08:47 | ratrun | OSMI is the OpenStreetmap inspector , see tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=14.78493&lat=48.24178&zoom=8&overlays=snap_points,unconnected_open_ends_1I check with Bing before I connect two ways. | |
| 82936739 by NKA @ 2020-04-01 16:46 | 1 | 2020-04-08 15:19 | ratrun | This import is duplicating a lots of ways. See tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=14.78493&lat=48.24178&zoom=8&overlays=snap_points,unconnected_open_ends_1Can you point me to the discussion for this import? Do you plan to manually clean up after this import? Thanks. |
| 2 | 2020-04-08 16:09 | NKA ♦247 | It seems there was a misalignment between source and target dataset. Fixed now.Here is the import wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/Road_import_(Norway) | |
| 82722285 by michele stress @ 2020-03-27 15:38 | 1 | 2020-03-28 17:51 | ratrun | The change from waterway to highway=secondary in https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/262570713 seems to be an error. Can you please re-check this modification? |
| 82579146 by ratrun @ 2020-03-24 15:57 | 1 | 2020-03-25 12:10 | Axelos ♦102 | Bonjour, pouvez-vous donner la raison de suppression des chemins autour de l’hôtel de Ville ? Ceux-ci furent insérés suite à repérages sur terrain.Bien cordialement. |
| 2 | 2020-03-25 12:56 | ratrun | Sorry, I do not speak French, but Google Translate helped me to understand what you commented.I only deleted duplicates of ways and nodes. As you can see on the map they are still there. | |
| 3 | 2020-03-25 13:16 | cyel ♦15 | Ok, sorry for these duplicates | |
| 81832166 by ratrun @ 2020-03-05 17:06 | 1 | 2020-03-06 18:11 | abrensch ♦674 | Hallo Ratrun,was hast Du denn hier gefixt?Das ist hier alles komplett kaputt, die ganzen Nebenstrassen sind nicht angeschlossen, und die Tiroler Strasse hat auch noch mindestens einen unverbunden Node...Gruss, Arndt |
| 2 | 2020-03-06 19:09 | ratrun | Ich hatte nur die Tirolerstraße verbunden, die aufgetrennt war. Die unverbundenen Nebenstrassen sind mir dabei nicht aufgefallen. Ich habe dafür soeben ein paar weitere Fixes hochgeladen. | |
| 76164195 by ratrun @ 2019-10-24 15:58 | 1 | 2019-10-24 18:15 | rarad74 ♦275 | Hi you damaged residential poligon of Bucharest. |
| 2 | 2019-10-25 15:11 | ratrun | I don't think that it was me who destroyed this relation. I checked the history of way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/258887891 and the culpit probably was user Himawari207 with changeset 76099635. Anyway, it looks as you have already repaired it. Thank you! | |
| 69121583 by ratrun @ 2019-04-11 16:29 | 1 | 2019-05-19 09:37 | aceman444 ♦2,566 | Sorry, but this change is wrong. The old road are really split with the cycleway. |
| 2 | 2019-05-19 09:40 | aceman444 ♦2,566 | I have now made it more explicit by adding a small path inbetween. | |
| 3 | 2019-05-20 16:57 | ratrun | Thank you! | |
| 70326158 by ratrun @ 2019-05-16 16:21 | 1 | 2019-05-16 18:33 | PT-53 ♦3,642 | Hallo ratrun,Du hast an diesem Knoten 5403620664 noexit=yes und gleichzeitig fixme=check eingetragen.Du hast also keinerlei Ortskenntnisse (fixme=check), trägst aber noexit=yes ein.Warum?Fragende Grüße |
| 2 | 2019-05-17 15:02 | ratrun | Ich behebe Fehler, die der Open Streetmap Inspector (OSMI) in seiner "Routing View" anzeigt. Siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing. In dem Fall konnte ich aus dem Luftbild nicht erkennen ob es zwischen Hofäckerweg und der Ringstrße eine Verbindung... | |
| 3 | 2019-05-17 15:41 | PT-53 ♦3,642 | Das ist doch keine Fehlerbehebung wenn Du - ohne Ortskenntnisse - einfach noexit=yes einträgst damit im OSM-Inspector ein Routing-Hinweis weniger angezeigt wird. Dafür wird nun im OSM-Inspector View Tagging ein zusätzlicher Hinweis Fixme angezeigt.Ich erwarte, daß Du Deine &qu... | |
| 4 | 2019-05-17 15:45 | PT-53 ♦3,642 | PS:Siehe auch OSM-Forum-Beitrag "Zweifelhafte QS-Arbeiten: noexit=yes + fime=check"https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=66258 | |
| 5 | 2019-05-17 15:51 | ratrun | Aus meiner Sicht ist das die eleganteste Möglichkeit, dass sich das Problem zeitnah jemandem vor Ort wirklich einmal angeschaut wird, da ich davon ausgehe, dass mehr Leute vor Ort Fixmes bearbeiten können und möchten als OSMI Fehler. | |
| 6 | 2019-05-17 16:10 | PT-53 ♦3,642 | In meiner Gegend hat ein Mapper so viele Fixme erstellt, daß man den Wald vor lauter Bäumen nicht mehr sieht. Ich blende deshalb im OSMI Fixme generell aus. Den Routing-Hinweis hatte ich aber im Auge und wollte dort in den nächsten Wochen mit dem Rad vorbeifahren.Ich wiederhole:I... | |
| 7 | 2019-05-17 16:50 | ratrun | Da ich kein Forum Benutzer bin möchte ich ich das Thema gerne hier weiter diskutieren und ich bitte um Verständnis, dass ich Deiner forschen Aufforderung hier vorerst einmal nicht nachkomme. Ich konnte nicht wissen, dass in dieser Gegend alles mit Fixmes zugemüllt worden ist. In meine... | |
| 8 | 2019-05-17 16:57 | Nakaner ♦3,143 | Hallo ratrun,"your good judgement" heißt halt in dem Fall, dass man nachdenkt und überlegt, welche Folgen ein scheinbares Beheben des Problems hat. Von den Nutzern eines Qualitätssicherungsdienstes außerhalb der Validierungsregeln des OSM Inspectors kann meiner Me... | |
| 9 | 2019-05-17 17:26 | ratrun | Hallo Michael!ich werde Eurer Bitte nachkommen wenn ihr mir bitte erklärt wie ich mit dem OSMI dauerhaft sinnvoll arbeiten soll, wenn ich nicht immer wieder auf die selben unklaren Fälle hingewiesen werden möchte. | |
| 10 | 2019-05-17 19:50 | PT-53 ♦3,642 | Hallo ratrun,Du schreibst, daß Du kein Forum-Benutzer bist und zitierst gleichzeitig die Aussage von Nakaner.Wie paßt das zusammen?Der OSMI zeigt Hinweise auf "mögliche Fehler" an. Ob das ein echter Fehler ist oder eben nicht kann man oft nur mit Ortskenntnissen / ... | |
| 11 | 2019-05-18 05:45 | ratrun | Hallo PT-53!Ich wusste nicht, dass man keinen neuen User anlegen muss um im Forum mitzudiskutieren. Danke an Nakaner für den Hinweis.Langfristig sinnvolle Arbeit ist mit OSMI nur dann möglich wenn es eine Möglichkeit dessen Hinweise auch irgendwie loszuwerden. Jedenfalls fin... | |
| 12 | 2019-05-18 05:50 | PT-53 ♦3,642 | Da gehen unsere Meinungen, was sinnvolle Arbeit mit OSMI ist, sehr weit auseinander. | |
| 13 | 2019-05-19 04:54 | PT-53 ♦3,642 | Und, machst Du Deine Bearbeitungen an diesem Knoten rückgängig oder muß ich das machen? | |
| 14 | 2019-05-19 09:10 | Luzandro ♦905 | "Aus meiner Sicht ist das die eleganteste Möglichkeit, dass sich das Problem zeitnah jemandem vor Ort wirklich einmal angeschaut wird, da ich davon ausgehe, dass mehr Leute vor Ort Fixmes bearbeiten können und möchten als OSMI Fehler."Genau das Gegenteil ist der Fall. Du... | |
| 62661164 by QEDquid @ 2018-09-17 11:10 | 1 | 2018-09-29 17:32 | ratrun | Durch diese Änderung wurden ganze Straßenzüge etwa 270 Meter offenscihtlich unabsichtlich schlimm verschoben. So zum Beispiel die Kamptalstraße B34 zwischen Feuersbrunn und Fels am Wagram und die Kremser Straße! Kannst Du das bitte wieder reparieren? |
| 53267533 by ratrun @ 2017-10-26 16:23 | 1 | 2017-10-27 13:27 | yzal ♦53 | I am looking at bing maps and the road is not there. So how do you know the footway and road are connected? Whats the real source of your edit? |
| 2 | 2017-10-27 16:30 | ratrun | The node was such close to the footway that OSMI (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing) detected an error. Now I set "noexit=yes" with "fixme=check". | |
| 3 | 2017-10-30 07:22 | kayle ♦265 | My fault, bad tagging. :(Road is not connected to footwayhttps://www.mapillary.com/map/im/iIv2VH3kajpL4Yy0Oa8lEw | |
| 50791572 by Polyglot @ 2017-08-02 21:23 | 1 | 2017-09-27 16:16 | ratrun | Can you please check these two ways of the changeset?https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/512397892https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/512397914Both these ways do not look plausible. |
| 2 | 2017-09-28 05:05 | Polyglot ♦86 | OK, it took me a while to figure out how this may have happened. There were more ways affected. I hope I caught them all. When resolving validation errors, there is the suggestion to replace oneway=-1 with oneway=yes. Usually I press r for reverse, but now it seems I pressed Ctrl-d while zoomed out. | |
| 52245930 by ratrun @ 2017-09-21 14:44 | 1 | 2017-09-25 18:36 | joost schouppe ♦1,147 | Hi Ratrun,This was a wrong correction. It wasn't mapped properly, but I was pretty sure there was no through traffic allowed. Your change allows quite strange routing options. There was a note on this bit of road, to mark it for surveying (846771). |
| 2 | 2017-09-27 15:57 | ratrun | Thanks for the correction. I didn't notice the note, it was not visible in the data and also not from bing images. | |
| 3 | 2017-09-27 16:40 | joost schouppe ♦1,147 | Thanks for the reply!You might consider switching on notes in your editor. Also, in Brussels and Flanders "AGIV Flanders most recent aerial imagery" is much better, in terms of age and resolution. A bit of a pity that JOSM doesn't seem to have an indication of "best available&q... | |
| 51621510 by ratrun @ 2017-08-31 16:43 | 1 | 2017-08-31 22:39 | MrKooken ♦107 | I don't understand what you have fixed. |
| 2 | 2017-09-01 13:22 | ratrun | See the changeset, it is very small. One node was overlapping, duplicated and not connected to "Kotkampplein".The best method I know to look at the details is to try to revert the change in JOSM. You can use the validator and the problem will show up. | |
| 45164172 by ratrun @ 2017-01-14 16:28 | 1 | 2017-08-27 08:44 | GerdP ♦2,751 | Hi!please check typo highway=tre on some ways. Not sure if you meant residential or track. Seehttp://overpass-turbo.eu/s/rhf |
| 2 | 2017-08-28 16:50 | ratrun | Thank you -> Fixed. | |
| 44121121 by ratrun @ 2016-12-02 18:44 | 1 | 2017-08-23 12:46 | GerdP ♦2,751 | Hi!Please review typo highway=drt on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/418702547 |
| 2 | 2017-08-23 15:43 | ratrun | Hi. Thank you. Fixed. | |
| 50357634 by Mahamane Abdoulkader @ 2017-07-17 17:22 | 1 | 2017-07-19 18:00 | ratrun | This changeset creates a couple of duplicated prallel overlapping ways. It looks as you didn't check previously existing ways. Therefore I would like to revert this change. Do you mind? |
| 2 | 2017-07-21 11:41 | Mahamane Abdoulkader ♦1 | HelloThank you very much for my notification and I give you permission to go back on work to improve the quality of the data that I am producing. | |
| 3 | 2017-07-21 16:37 | ratrun | Revert done. Thanks for the response.BR,ratrun | |
| 34908323 by ratrun @ 2015-10-27 17:19 | 1 | 2017-06-28 07:13 | Sanniu ♦569 | http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374692783 - is it roundabout? |
| 2 | 2017-06-28 15:42 | ratrun | Yes, it looks like a roundabout. I changed it now. | |
| 47838136 by lodde1949 @ 2017-04-16 13:18 | 1 | 2017-04-25 15:39 | ratrun | Please repair the highway type of way 235058406 and the other segements of St. Jobsstraat, you changed it to the name. Thanks. |
| 47878304 by ratrun @ 2017-04-17 16:57 | 1 | 2017-04-20 05:44 | MiroJanosik ♦139 | Ahoj, myslim ze nie je spravne ze cely chodnik 486560828 ma oznacenie ako 'crossing', asi si to chcel dat iba na mensi usek chodnika. |
| 2 | 2017-04-21 15:05 | ratrun | Sorry, I do not understand your language. Please write in German or English. | |
| 3 | 2017-04-21 18:13 | MiroJanosik ♦139 | Hello, I think that it is not correct that whole sidewalk 486560828 is marked as crossing. As written at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway=crossing?uselang=en-US - it should be a path lying on the road that is connecting two sidewalks. | |
| 4 | 2017-04-21 18:15 | MiroJanosik ♦139 | But never mind that - I will fix it right away, now. | |
| 5 | 2017-04-21 18:20 | MiroJanosik ♦139 | Ok, changed. | |
| 6 | 2017-04-22 12:21 | ratrun | Thank you. Anyhow it was not me who added the crossing tag. All these sidewalks are mapped badly as they are missing the shared crossing points with the roads on the crossing. It means that they are mostly useless for foot routing. From my perspective it would be bettter to add sidewalk tags to the ... | |
| 7 | 2017-04-22 23:30 | MiroJanosik ♦139 | I agree, but missing crossing points are probably valid in this situation, as they look like a small streets with low traffic, so there are no pedestrian crossing symbols. | |
| 46113871 by ratrun @ 2017-02-15 18:03 | 1 | 2017-04-05 01:34 | alesarrett ♦130 | Hi, I've seen your fix and I'd like to understand what you've modified and why. I see from the description that this is related to "osmi routing view fixes" so I'd like to understand how to improve my mapping if this is not helping some routing functionalities. Thank yo... |
| 2 | 2017-04-05 15:36 | ratrun | Please see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing. There everything should be explained. | |
| 3 | 2017-04-05 18:04 | alesarrett ♦130 | Thank you for sharing this. | |
| 46744815 by ratrun @ 2017-03-10 17:50 | 1 | 2017-03-10 20:50 | aufachse ♦34 | Hallo ratrun,du hast in diesem changeset etwas 'gefixt'. Als Quelle gibst du bing an. Auf bing maps ist die Verlängerung der Magister-Dorn-Straße noch nicht zu sehen, auch nicht eine Verbindung mit dem Feldweg. Bitte um Angabe der Quelle, die diese Änderung rechtfertigt. ... |
| 2 | 2017-03-16 19:19 | aufachse ♦34 | Hallo ratrun,nachdem keine Reaktion von dir kam, habe ich den ursprünglichen Zustand wieder hergestellt. | |
| 3 | 2017-03-17 20:15 | aufachse ♦34 | Hallo ratrun,Schade daß du nicht reagierst hast und wieder 'fixt'. Mein erster Kommentar ist nachwievor gültig. Wir können hier nun ein Spielchen spielen oder wie vernünftige Menschen das Problem lösen. Dazu bedarf es allerdings gegenseitiger Kommunikation. Du h... | |
| 4 | 2017-03-18 09:48 | ratrun | Bei OSMI handelt es sich um den OSM Inspector http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing. In der Routing View werden nicht verbundene nahe nebeinanderliegende "highway" Knoten angemeckert. Für diese Knoten ändere ich unter Berücksichtung von Bing und vers... | |
| 5 | 2017-03-19 09:04 | aufachse ♦34 | Hallo ratrun,Schön daß du Qualitätsmanagement betreibst. Leider ist das mit dem 'erraten' so eine Sache. In diesem Fall ist auf 'bing' nämlich noch garnichts zu sehen. Bitte verwende beim Korrigieren aktuelle Quellen (hier Bayern 80cm). Habe mich aufgrund d... | |
| 46817798 by ratrun @ 2017-03-13 16:43 | 1 | 2017-03-13 18:11 | Zbigniew_Cz ♦974 | What is a matter of this change? |
| 2 | 2017-03-14 15:58 | ratrun | See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing for an explaination of OSMI routing view. | |
| 3 | 2017-03-14 16:09 | Zbigniew_Cz ♦974 | What was wrong with this way? | |
| 4 | 2017-03-14 16:30 | ratrun | There was an unconnected node. | |
| 33009372 by ratrun @ 2015-07-31 15:15 | 1 | 2016-11-24 17:22 | Smiljan_02 ♦58 | Hallo ratrun, du hast an der L204 zwischen Lustenau - Autobahnanschluß Dornbirn-Süd mit deinem pauschalen Edit ein motorroad=yes gesetzt, obwohl diese Straße zumindest von Lustenau aus nicht als Autostraße ausgewiesen ist.Ein highway=trunk kennzeichnet nur die baulich getre... |
| 2 | 2016-11-25 06:08 | ratrun | Bitte lies dir die Diskussion unter http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/22299654 dazu durch. | |
| 3 | 2016-11-25 10:14 | Smiljan_02 ♦58 | Das hatte ich mir schon angesehen, du hast ja in deinem Kommentar darauf verwießen. Das ist aber keine Diskussion, sonder eine Dialog zwischen dir und fkv . Solche großflächigen Änderungen gehören ins Forum und die Mailingliste.Ein highway=trunk ist auch in Österrei... | |
| 4 | 2016-11-26 08:24 | ratrun | Das ganze hat eine Historie. Die dazu Disukussion wurde hier geführt. Siehe http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Austria/Schnellstraßen, dort ist "festgelegt", dass in Österreich "trunk" für eine Autostrasse mit baulicher Trennung verwendet wird. Ic... | |
| 5 | 2016-11-26 09:35 | Smiljan_02 ♦58 | Das ist ja auch für Schnellstraßen richtig, passt aber nicht für den Streckenabschnitt der L204 zwischen Lustenau - Autobahnanschluß Dornbirn-Süd .Da ist eine Landesstraße (ehemalige Bundesstraßr) als "trunk" gemappt und du hast sie zur Autostra&szl... | |
| 6 | 2016-11-26 10:12 | Smiljan_02 ♦58 | So, noch mal 5 Minuten nachgedacht und im Wiki bei highway=trunk gelesen. Die L204 zwischen Lustenau - Autobahnanschluß Dornbirn-Süd ist eigentlich gar keine "trunk" da die zweite Eigeschaft - Kreuzungsfreiheit besteht. Da gibt es 2 Kreuzungen auf gleichem Niveau, also ehr kein ... | |
| 7 | 2016-11-26 16:15 | ratrun | Genau das hatte ich mit meinen Antworten gemeint. Die "note" könntes Du auch weglassen nach meinem Geschmack. | |
| 8 | 2016-11-27 14:46 | zimba ♦212 | Ich bin fuer das "highway=trunk" an dieser Strasse (das "motorroad" halte ich aber auch fuer falsch). Abgesehen von 1,2 Bauern die die Kreuzungen verwenden um an ihre Felder zu kommen, verwendet man diese Strasse nur um von Lustenau Richtung Autobahn zu kommen. Hier wird nicht im... | |
| 42397558 by renosmo @ 2016-09-24 00:20 | 1 | 2016-09-25 17:25 | ratrun | Please check this changeset. The new way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/444073760 does not look correct. |
| 2 | 2016-09-26 00:22 | renosmo ♦7 | For some strange reason, someone had decided to put 3 lanes on that avenue - 2 corresponding to the avenue, and a 3rd that was comprised of that avenue and a whole bunch of nearby streets. And, when I gave the avenue its name, (from the zoom level I was using) I didn't notice there were 3 lanes... | |
| 41564672 by ratrun @ 2016-08-19 20:01 | 1 | 2016-09-25 14:55 | aceman444 ♦2,566 | Hi, what is this change doing? Does it mean also pedestrians on the footway can't ho through that fence that is now a node on the footway? |
| 2 | 2016-09-25 17:18 | ratrun | As I do not know the location, I cannot answer. But you are right, probably it would have been better to leave the node disconnected and add a "noexit=yes". But from my understanding usually a barrier is usually tagged in case that the way continues beyond. | |
| 3 | 2016-09-25 20:34 | aceman444 ♦2,566 | It's not great to edit places you do not know and change the meaning. The pedestrians going on the footway along Eotvosova do not need to cross any fence. Only the ones coming from Sturova have to. So you have now completely blocked passage along the footway as I think by default nothing can pa... | |
| 41756001 by NKA_import @ 2016-08-28 13:32 | 1 | 2016-08-29 15:46 | ratrun | This import has created a huge amount of unconnected ways. See http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=8.82596&lat=58.47437&zoom=11&overlays=unconnected_major1,unconnected_major2,unconnected_major5. Please point me to where this import was discussed. I belive it should be r... |
| 2 | 2016-08-29 18:22 | NKA_import ♦6 | No need to revert. I will fix it within a day.The import is documented here:http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/Road_import_(Norway) | |
| 3 | 2016-08-29 21:51 | NKA_import ♦6 | I have now uploaded a large number of corrections. Will check again tomorrow after OSM Inspector updates.One of the steps in my workflow had incomplete data. | |
| 41538794 by ProjectThis @ 2016-08-18 16:40 | 1 | 2016-08-27 07:59 | ratrun | Could you please check https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/437821818 ? According to bing images and existing data this new road is not plausible. |
| 39197407 by ratrun @ 2016-05-09 18:07 | 1 | 2016-05-12 12:08 | vmalep ♦2 | Is there a way to put this orad back. It does exist and was correctly designed. |
| 2 | 2016-05-12 16:52 | ratrun | I'm sorry, I cannot guess which way you are talking about. There were multiple geometrical problems in the data. The most prominent was way 261675844, which was obviously acciditially moved to an incorrect location such that it overlapped with other existing data. | |
| 3 | 2016-05-12 17:58 | ratrun | In a private message I got the folllowing information "I just realized you have deleted the road between Manono and Mpiana and wonder why."-> Now I see what you mean. I'm sorry for that, this happened by accident and I didn't notice. It seems that you already did restore i... | |
| 4 | 2016-05-13 06:20 | vmalep ♦2 | Hi Ratrun,Thanks for responding. I did recreate the road, but quickly while for the one you deleted by mistake, I had spent time putting it on the right place, etc. More importantly, I noticed that there are more road missing (that can be found tracing the history of Manono town.I am still n... | |
| 37168674 by spieli70 @ 2016-02-12 13:58 | 1 | 2016-02-18 16:25 | ratrun | Diese Änderung sieht sehr seltsam aus, sie ist voller Fehler (Unverbundene Knoten ohne Rücksicht auf die bestehenden Wege.) Wenn hier wirklich eine Umfahrung gebaut worden ist, dann bitte überarbeite und verbessere Deine Änderung gründlich, ansonsten werden ich sie rück... |
| 32974039 by MeghaShrestha @ 2015-07-30 09:23 | 1 | 2016-01-22 16:18 | ratrun | What happened here? This changeset looks really bad. As it is obvious that something is wrong here I deleted it. |
| 35731213 by ratrun @ 2015-12-03 17:09 | 1 | 2015-12-23 18:16 | alphensebezorger ♦393 | No direct traffic is possible from Wilhelminastraat 24D to Sint Maartenstraat 6A. There is a barrier which even pedestrians can not pass without some climbing. |
| 2 | 2015-12-23 20:25 | ratrun | Thank you. I tagged the information you gave here. | |
| 35702203 by JMendes @ 2015-12-02 09:39 | 1 | 2015-12-02 18:14 | ratrun | Could you please provide information about the source you are using. According to bin areal image the data looks to be of very bad quality. And there are a lot of geometrical errors contained, as the ways are often not connected to already exising ways. |
| 2 | 2015-12-02 19:46 | JMendes ♦1 | I'm using a GPS and then edit the information in ArcGIS. Can you give me a more concrete example of the mistakes you found? I may have made a mistake and in that case I'll fix it. I appreciate your attention. | |
| 3 | 2015-12-02 20:40 | ratrun | Please see all the red points at OSMI (=Open Streetmap inspector): http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=58.74440&lat=23.45595&zoom=11&overlays=unconnected_major1,unconnected_major2,unconnected_major5,duplicate_ways The documentation of the tool can be found here: ... | |
| 4 | 2015-12-03 09:39 | JMendes ♦1 | I thank you for helping me to do the job well done. I'm learning to use these tools and an experienced opinion is always welcome. I already did the correction of some errors but it keeps giving me the error on OSM Inspector. He immediately makes the refresh or takes a while to do? | |
| 5 | 2015-12-03 16:49 | ratrun | Thank you. Usually an OSMI update takes 24 hours. I believe that currently the new update gets active at between 10:00 UTC and 14UTC. | |
| 35670332 by ratrun @ 2015-11-30 17:30 | 1 | 2015-12-02 13:29 | brunesto ♦5 | Thanks for fixing it!,Please I would like to know: do you use an automatic script or a website to detect when a road is non routable?Bruno |
| 2 | 2015-12-02 17:17 | ratrun | I'm using OSMI.OSMI is the Open Streetmap Inspector. This is the view I'm using most of the times:http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=12.61778&lat=49.40295&zoom=6&overlays=unconnected_major1,unconnected_major2,unconnected_major5,duplicate_waysDocumentat... | |
| 3 | 2015-12-02 18:08 | brunesto ♦5 | Thanks! | |
| 35283113 by TrudyHope @ 2015-11-13 12:45 | 1 | 2015-11-30 17:52 | ratrun | This is a terrible mechanical import of bad quality which should be reverted. |
| 2 | 2015-12-03 07:08 | zool ♦50 | The changeset source claims that it derives from Bing data. However the tags on the nodes and ways do look as if this was automatically added from another source (e.g. an import or "mechanical edit") and there's significant duplicate data which does not take into account existing mapp... | |
| 3 | 2015-12-05 07:08 | zool ♦50 | I've now reverted this changeset on behalf of the Data Working Group - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35763125 | |
| 35217303 by Algebre gama @ 2015-11-10 15:05 | 1 | 2015-11-12 16:52 | ratrun | You are destroying the connectivity of the network. Please stop and revert this! See http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=2.21356&lat=35.27907&zoom=7&overlays=unconnected_major1,unconnected_major2,unconnected_major5,duplicate_ways . Most of the errors seem to be cause by ... |
| 2 | 2015-11-16 20:24 | Algebre gama ♦16 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 35351398 where the changeset comment is: remove duplicates nodes | |
| 35152976 by sturlak @ 2015-11-07 16:33 | 1 | 2015-11-10 18:33 | ratrun | Please check https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/261017189 and the parallel oneway leading into the other direction: Theses segments are not connected and I can't guess the attached only_straight_on restriction relation. |
| 34953605 by ratrun @ 2015-10-29 16:51 | 1 | 2015-10-31 12:58 | Papa Schlumpf ♦3 | Da besteht keine Verbindung |
| 2 | 2015-10-31 16:36 | ratrun | Falls wirklich keine Verbindung besteht, dann setzt bitte ein noexit=yes auf den östlichen Endknoten. Laut Bing Lufbild sollte aber zumindest eine Verbindung mit dem Fussweg bestehen. Wenn der östliche Ausgang für Taxis gesperrt ist, dann sollte wohl das westliche Ende verbunden wer... | |
| 3 | 2015-10-31 16:52 | Papa Schlumpf ♦3 | Es ist absolut schlechter Stil, Bing als Vorlage zu benutzen! Was vor Ort ist, ist wichtig. Also: selber hingehen und anschauen und nicht einfach planlos ändern und behaupten. | |
| 34694233 by ratrun @ 2015-10-17 13:48 | 1 | 2015-10-18 09:14 | species ♦74 | Warum wurden an https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1244503896/historyhighway=traffic_signals entfernt?Iirc ist genau an der Stelle die Haltelinie für die Ampel... |
| 2 | 2015-10-18 13:06 | ratrun | Weil der 2.5 Meter entfernte Eintrag auf https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1115213365 für die selbe Ampel reicht. | |
| 3 | 2015-10-18 13:52 | species ♦74 | Leider nein - hier gehts um die penalty-Zeiten fürs Auto-Routing.OSRM zB. ignoriert highway=crossing, crossing=traffic_signals.Aus gutem Grund, Beispiel:https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/17322899#map=19/48.17779/16.37917&layers=DWenn man hier in Ost-West-Richtung fährt, hat ... | |
| 4 | 2015-10-18 14:26 | ratrun | Als Contributor von graphhopper kann ich Deinen Einwand mit jetzigen Erklärung nun verstehen, aber das doppelte Tagging kann nicht die Lösung sein - hier handelt es sich doch eindeutig um Tagging für den Router. | |
| 5 | 2015-10-18 14:48 | species ♦74 | Dein Verständnis freut mich!Aber warum ist doppelt getaggt schlecht?highway=traffic_signals ist ja für die Haltelinie der Autos da, highway=crossing, crossing=traffic_signals dafür, dass der Fußgängerüberweg ampelgeregelt ist.„Wir taggen nicht für die ... | |
| 6 | 2015-10-18 15:10 | ratrun | Sorry und danke, ich habe erst jetzt mein Missverständnis bemerkt. Ich habe mich irritieren lassen durch die ähnlichen Ampel Icons von JOSM. Aber eigentlich sind es die Icons für highway=traffic_signals und crossing=traffic_signals eh leicht unterschiedlich. Ich habe es revertiert je... | |
| 7 | 2015-10-18 15:11 | species ♦74 | Danke! :-) | |
| 34618614 by ratrun @ 2015-10-13 18:28 | 1 | 2015-10-13 20:06 | d3mol3k ♦167 | Czemu dopiąłeś uliczkę do chodnika? |
| 2 | 2015-10-14 15:34 | ratrun | I'm sorry I only understand German or English. | |
| 34563042 by koehlertom @ 2015-10-11 06:34 | 1 | 2015-10-11 07:00 | ratrun | Weil Dein Changeset über ganz Eutopa geht habe ich es mir angesehen. Bitte pass auf was Du machst. Du hast den Knoten https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2096746955 auf Zypern wohl unabsichtlich verschoben. Ich habe es nicht ausgebessert, damit Du es machen kannst. Bitte sag mit Bescheid. |
| 34391428 by ratrun @ 2015-10-02 15:21 | 1 | 2015-10-02 17:59 | flohoff ♦2,353 | Hi,ich verstehe diesen Changeset nicht so ganz. Du schreibst das das aus dem OSMI Routing View kommt. Du entfernst hier aber eine Ampel.Kriege ich gerade nicht zusammen!??!Flo |
| 2 | 2015-10-02 18:23 | ratrun | Weil sie doppelt war auf zwei unverbundenen Knoten | |
| 33498586 by ratrun @ 2015-08-22 04:57 | 1 | 2015-09-26 16:01 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | I think that something's gone a bit wrong with the tagging of http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/120317629/history . Currently it has "yes=no". I'm guessing that perhaps that should be "oneway=no" or some other access mode = "no"? |
| 2 | 2015-09-27 14:04 | ratrun | Thans for informing me. I fixed it. It would be interesting to know how that happended, because I'm 100% sure that I didn't tag this intentionally. I tried to figure out what could have happend using JOSM, but I couldn't. I know that it must be related with the JOSM feature th... | |
| 33753537 by PieterSwemmer @ 2015-09-02 14:40 | 1 | 2015-09-25 15:07 | ratrun | OSM is not the reight platform to put data of private/commerical Marathons to it. Please migrate the data in to ordinary none overlapping ways with the respective highway tagging. The name of your event needs to be deleted. |
| 34051179 by heilbron @ 2015-09-15 22:55 | 1 | 2015-09-18 20:06 | ratrun | Bei der Änderung ist einiges schief gegangen. Bitte überprüfe was da los ist. Es wurde eine Kopie der B170 und L203 mitten in den Bergen angelegt. Z.B: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370791948Am besten wäre es wohl das ganze Changeset zu reverten. Oder? |
| 2 | 2015-09-18 22:14 | heilbron ♦21 | Danke @ratrun für den Hinweis! Ich habe anscheinend versehentlich Elemente der von mir frisch angelegten Relation für die Buslinie 4004 kopiert! Und soeben wieder manuell gelöscht, um nicht die Buslinie zu verlieren. 34112425 ist der korrigierende Changesatz. | |
| 33854930 by korkisch @ 2015-09-07 12:17 | 1 | 2015-09-07 15:56 | ratrun | OSM ist nicht dafür gedacht die Wohnorte von Einzelpersonen zu erfassen. Das verträgt sich mit dem Datenschutz gar nicht. Bitte mache daher jede diesbezügliche Änderung rückgängig, wenn es sich hier um keinen offiziellen Firmennamen handelt! |
| 33566262 by ghost_biker @ 2015-08-25 09:49 | 1 | 2015-08-29 16:04 | ratrun | Hallo, bitte wandle die Steinbergrunde in eine Wanderwegrelation um. Einfach nur offensichtlich von GPS abgeleitete Daten hochladen geht nicht, weil dadurch nur überlappende Wegsegmente entstehen. Danke. |
| 33510847 by ratrun @ 2015-08-22 18:21 | 1 | 2015-08-23 12:21 | abdeldjalil ♦36 | Why delete primary road exist ????!!!!! |
| 2 | 2015-08-23 13:47 | ratrun | If I understood the question right you are asking why I deleted the primary road. The answer is because it was duplicated. There is one primary left (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/313924829).But the data is still a mess in this area. See the overlapping ways 313959913 and 313924829. Th... | |
| 32518817 by szentpet @ 2015-07-09 13:22 | 1 | 2015-08-16 14:47 | ratrun | Please migrate the trail into a walking relation. |
| 33133845 by Breitlingxxx @ 2015-08-05 16:38 | 1 | 2015-08-15 17:22 | ratrun | Die neuen Sandwege sehen eher unrealistisch aus. Wieso sind sie mit den bestehenden Wegen nicht verbunden und so schnurgerade? Haben sie die bestehenden Pfade ersetzt, dann ist die Lage unrealistisch. Falls sie dazugekommen sind haben sie sicher Kreuzungen mit den Pfaden. Bitte überarbeiten! |
| 32620421 by DK_VJCS @ 2015-07-14 07:21 | 1 | 2015-08-15 08:29 | ratrun | I have some scripts, which analyse the cycleways in Austria. Could you please explain this changeset?You migrated a waterway relation into a cycleway relation. This really looks strange as I have no idea how one could cycle on/in the water of the rever. There is also no comment on what the intenti... |
| 22299654 by ratrun @ 2014-05-12 20:02 | 1 | 2015-07-24 19:29 | fkv ♦585 | Die Änderung gehört meiner Meinung nach rückgängig gemacht. Erstens ist sie ein unerlaubter Massenedit (siehe automated edits policy), und zweitens gilt der Grundsatz "we map what we see". Ein Fahrverbot gehört gemappt, wo es angeschrieben ist. Alle Implikationen g... |
| 2 | 2015-07-25 10:38 | ratrun | Geht es noch ein bisschen unfreundlicher?Diese Änderung ist ein Jahr alt und hat bisher niemanden gestört. Ich habe nur konsequent durchgezogen, was großteils allerdings lückenhaft bereits eingetragen war.Länderspezifisch abhängige Regeln unterstützen noch... | |
| 3 | 2015-07-25 17:23 | fkv ♦585 | Die Änderung hat deshalb niemanden gestört, weil sie keiner bemerkt hat. Wenn du sie, wie es Pflicht gewesen wäre, vorher in der Mailingliste diskutiert hättest, dann hätte es Gegenstimmen gegeben, zumindest von mir.Da du den ganzen Tag nur Routingfixes machst, nehme ich a... | |
| 4 | 2015-07-27 17:25 | ratrun | Das tag motorroad=yes kannte ich bisher nicht. Es wäre tatsächlich besser geeignet gewesen. Teilweise ist es mittlerweile schon entsprechend angepasst worden.Eine länderspezifisches Routing Logik in einem der Router löst das Problem nicht. Man müsste das in allen implement... | |
| 5 | 2015-07-27 19:04 | fkv ♦585 | Eine länderspezifische Logik ist sowieso nötig, weil die gesetzlichen Regelungen je nach Land unterschiedlich sind. Konkret heißt das, dass die Tabellen von http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions und http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for... | |
| 6 | 2015-07-30 18:59 | ratrun | Ja. Ich werde es in ein paar Tagen ansehen. | |
| 7 | 2015-07-31 15:23 | ratrun | Nach etwas Spielerei mit der Overpass API und der JOSM Filterfunktion habe ich die vorgeschlagene Änderung hochgeladen im Changeset 33009172. Ich habe dabei so wie damals highway=trunk und highway=trunk_link berücksichtigt. | |
| 32719033 by evod @ 2015-07-18 15:29 | 1 | 2015-07-19 08:09 | ratrun | Hallo evod, mich würde interessieren wie Du die Induktionsschleifen festgestellt hast. Sieht man die? Ich glaube nämlich, dass sich die Stelle etwa 120 Meter im Osten befindet. Wieso ich da drauf komme? Weil ich dort einmal von Studentinnen zu einer der händische durchführten Rad... |
| 2 | 2015-07-19 10:54 | evod ♦95 | Hallo ratrun, man kann die Zählstellen gut an den diamantförmigen Einschnitten im Asphalt erkennen, die mit Teer zugegossen sind. Ich bin den Liesingbachbegleitweg gestern abgefahren um die Stelle zu suchen, Fotos (auch von allen anderen Zählstellen) kannst du hier sehen: https://www.... | |
| 3 | 2015-07-19 14:09 | ratrun | Vielen Dank für die sorgfältige Dokumentation. Diese Einschnitte sind mir bisher nicht aufgefallen. Ich werde das nächste Mal langsam fahren dort und Aussicht halten danach. | |
| 32210019 by geoxplorer @ 2015-06-25 17:34 | 1 | 2015-06-28 08:23 | ratrun | Deine Änderungen waren syntaktisch etwas fehlerhaft und ich habe versucht zu erraten was Du gemeint hast. Bitte überprüfe meine Änderungen, besonders die Verbindung im Südwesten zur L453. |
| 31697629 by karolinaheck @ 2015-06-03 16:59 | 1 | 2015-06-12 15:36 | ratrun | What was the purpose of this huge changeset? It is very unusual that a brand new users first changeset is that big.The change created a big amount of errors and I assume your JOSM must have shown a lot of errors before the commit.Are you ok if I revert this changeset? |
| 2 | 2015-06-15 20:33 | naoliv ♦1,783 | The big bbox is caused by a long power line.From what I saw this changeset only duplicated data that was already present in OSM.I am reverting it in #31697629 | |
| 31823090 by emergency99 @ 2015-06-08 17:34 | 1 | 2015-06-10 16:24 | ratrun | Die Änderung in der Maroltingergasse mit "highway=secondary" auf way 228799257 wird von OSMI zu recht als Fehler angemeckert. Siehehttp://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=16.30468&lat=48.20871&zoom=18&overlays=unconnected_major1,unconnected_major2,unconne... |
| 2 | 2015-06-10 18:23 | emergency99 ♦288 | Die Gleise habe ich ja nicht gemappt. Nur diese Linien umgeändert. Aber das darfst du gerne zurückändern. No problem. Ich kümmere mich grad nur um die Buslinien... Mit den Gleisen habe ich eigentlich nichts zu tun... Ich werde das highway aus den Linien wieder löschen... | |
| 3 | 2015-06-10 18:25 | emergency99 ♦288 | Besser so: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/31878592 ? | |
| 4 | 2015-06-11 16:07 | ratrun | Danke. Es ist besser so. Die Fehler sind weg. | |
| 30530549 by maxi321 @ 2015-04-27 08:36 | 1 | 2015-05-02 13:18 | kartler175 ♦554 | Ist hier tatsächlich ein Stück neue Straße über der anderen? |
| 2 | 2015-05-19 16:32 | ratrun | Nachdem das die erste Änderung eines neuen Benutzer war, gehe ich davon aus, dass maxi321 hier herumexperimentiert hat.Wir wollen Dich maxi321 nicht gleich wieder vertreiben. Falls es die Absicht dieser Änderung war den Namen auf dem kleinen Stück auf Salzburger Strasse zu än... | |
| 30845503 by dorie @ 2015-05-06 15:11 | 1 | 2015-05-09 15:15 | ratrun | Mir scheint, dass diese Änderungen und die Änderungen in 30845724 unabsichtlich hochgeladen worden sind. Oder sind nun wirklich all die eingetragen Fussgängerzonen nun durch lauter namenloser Hauptstrassen plattgemacht worden? |
| 30911923 by ratrun @ 2015-05-08 15:58 | 1 | 2015-05-08 21:24 | jozo ♦2 | Are you sure? |
| 2 | 2015-05-09 13:49 | ratrun | No I'm not sure, therefore I added fixme=yes. On Bing it looks as Linnankatu continues to an underground parking. If you have lokal knowledge please check node 429907226, if this can be marked as noextit=yes in case that may guess with the underground parking is not valid. It is unlikely that t... | |
| 3 | 2015-05-09 14:09 | jozo ♦2 | barrier=retaining_wall and noextit=yes added | |
| 4 | 2015-05-09 14:39 | ratrun | Thank you! | |
| 30349131 by CAI Stabia @ 2015-04-20 08:46 | 1 | 2015-04-21 17:47 | ratrun | It looks you don't want to understand: Please stop uploading of whole GPS tracks! I already explained you politely the reasons in http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/30065747. If you continue messing up the data, I'll need to ask the data working group to block your account. |
| 2 | 2015-04-21 19:51 | CAI Stabia ♦63 | Ok, let's do it this way.I have finished loading tracks. If you see some additional error, just tell me. I'll try to fix it myself. In this way I will learn. Regarding loading tracks with JOSM, unfortunately there are tons of documents that do not specify the proper way to do it as you s... | |
| 30065747 by CAI Stabia @ 2015-04-08 14:49 | 1 | 2015-04-12 06:38 | ratrun | You seem to be directly loading GPX hiking data into the OSM database. This results in a lots of OSM data errors, because you created a lot over overlapping ways without connections to the rest of the map. Such data errors are displayed by the Open Streetmap Inspector tool and via this tool I dete... |
| 2 | 2015-04-15 13:41 | CAI Stabia ♦63 | Thank you for the comment. We are fairly new to the OSM editing and therefore any suggestion is very welcome .Regarding the track indicated , it is fully loaded to be properly rendered in: http://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/it/relation/4771065 and to be ready to be downloaded.We do not know w... | |
| 3 | 2015-04-15 19:37 | ratrun | In the meantime I have fixed the indicated errors. I would ask you to take a look onto http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route for the purpose of a route relation. From your description I guess that you haven't yet fully understood the purpose of it. A route relation with just one ele... | |
| 30219762 by ANNIM @ 2015-04-14 19:10 | 1 | 2015-04-15 05:06 | ratrun | Ist die Eintragung des Spitals in diesem Cnangset in Wien mit Absicht gemacht worden? Es sieht eher nach einem "Unfall" aus, weil ich mir nicht vorstellen kann, dass im Haus der Aphoteke auch ein ganzes Spital untergebracht ist. |
| 29779480 by da-sch @ 2015-03-27 14:51 | 1 | 2015-03-29 16:50 | ratrun | Beim Editieren dieser Autobahn dürfte irgendwas ziemlich schief gegangen sein. Bitte überprüfe das Ganze noch einmal. Es kann nicht sein, dass eine Autobahn aus dem nirgendwo beginnt und plötzlich endet, außerdem ist dort laut bing Luftbild überall Wald. Danke! |
| 2 | 2015-03-29 21:09 | da-sch ♦15 | Ich habe nur die vorhandene A19 bearbeitet und auch diese komische "A19" gesehen. Was das soll keine Ahnung! Eben nochmal auf neuen Sat-Bildern geschaut und wie erwartet nischt. Entferne die falsche A19 nachher. | |
| 29625980 by Walter Schlögl @ 2015-03-20 21:59 | 1 | 2015-03-29 16:17 | ratrun | Der Jagasteig track sieht sehr seltsam aus. Wenn man nach den geoimage und bing Luftbildern, dann kann es den Weg so kaum geben. Was ist Deine Quelle dafür? Warum ist der Weg nicht mit dem Rest verbunden? Danke! |
| 29760165 by ratrun @ 2015-03-26 18:24 | 1 | 2015-03-27 14:18 | Intemelio ♦1 | Hi, I'm #Intemelio from Italy.I look that you have made a little modification on the street "Via Palestro". Maybe I've done some drawing mistakes? |
| 2 | 2015-03-27 16:45 | ratrun | Hello Intemelio,For routing applications it is important that nodes at crossings are identical and not just close to each other. Therefore I'm repairing mapping errors detected by the Open Streetmap Inspector based on Bing or other satellite images, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org... | |
| 3 | 2015-03-27 17:15 | Intemelio ♦1 | Hello ratrun,thanks for your reply and for your advice.I began to map the streets and squares of my small town, but it's not so easy. I am a newbie, I read some of the documentation of OpenStreetMap, and I hope to do better in the future.with regard,Intemelio | |
| 28910362 by Karl Gruber @ 2015-02-17 14:44 | 1 | 2015-02-17 18:09 | ratrun | Ich bezweifle die Richtigkeit der gemachten Änderungen sehr. Bing ist keine Quelle für einen Strassennamen "Landstrasse", viehlmehr dürfte es ein unbeholfenem Versuch einer redundaten Qulifizierung gewesen zu sein, die OSM üblicherweise mittels highway tag vornimmt. Bit... |
| 2 | 2015-02-17 21:43 | Karl Gruber ♦3 | Hallo ratrun, ich habe auch nicht gesagt, dass die Straße Landesstraße heißt, sondern eine namenlose Landesstraße ist - wie es bei allen Landesstraßen außerhalb der Siedlungen ist. Eine Ortsstraße gibt es nur in Dornbach innerhalb der Ortstafeln - das selbe ... | |
| 3 | 2015-02-18 16:55 | ratrun | Wieso verpasst Du dem Weg 113385744 den Namen "Landesstraße", wenn Du selber sagst, dass es eine namenlose Landesstraße ist? Ich würde Dich bitten das selber auszubessern. Wenn ich den ganzen Changeset revertiere, dann geht auch die "Hauptstraßen" Ände... | |
| 28893705 by Giannì @ 2015-02-16 19:41 | 1 | 2015-02-17 18:42 | ratrun | This change looks very suspicous. You seem to be a new user. Do you mind if I revert your change? I can't believe that they moved the primary road into the sea. |
| 28799534 by ratrun @ 2015-02-12 16:47 | 1 | 2015-02-13 16:41 | zool ♦50 | You're contributing some changesets with a lot of deletions to tagged ways, and they stretch right across Europe. There's too much going on in each changeset to easily explore the consequences, so it would be good to have a clear description of what you are changing and why, rather than th... |
| 2 | 2015-02-13 18:56 | ratrun | Yes. OSMI is exactly the tool for which you provided the documentation link above.The wiki already explains what I'm doing and also includes an answer to your question about deletions in the changes-sets. This is what the wiki says about deletion. It is located in the "What you can do ... | |
| 3 | 2015-02-13 19:26 | tyr_asd ♦440 | Why don't you simply save each individual OSMI fix in an individual changeset? | |
| 4 | 2015-02-15 08:41 | ratrun | I don't do this because it spams the displayed amount of changset if one fixes bugs in small areas with many problems. This is the usual case. Every single upload would generate a small changeset, all containing the same comment. My experience is that it is good to perform multiple uploads and ... | |
| 5 | 2015-02-15 09:25 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | Actually, it would be better if each small change didn't "all contain the same comment". For example, rather than simply "osmi routing view fixes" the one that replaced http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/304192905/history with http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2971905214 coul... | |
| 6 | 2015-02-15 09:40 | ratrun | This is impractial. Connecting two nodes is a matter of 1 second, writing the comments would take at least 40 seconds. If you are working on such granuarity, then congratulations from me, but I won't do that. | |
| 7 | 2015-02-15 10:00 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | OpenStreetMap is a community - together we benefit from all the work that all other mappers have done. If a new mapper doesn't know that they're "doing it wrong" simply because no-one has been bothered to tell them, then they'll continue to do so, because they don't kn... | |
| 28823119 by ratrun @ 2015-02-13 15:08 | 1 | 2015-02-13 17:08 | tyr_asd ♦440 | Thank you for fixing so many routing data issues! But, can you please try to generate less continent-spanning changesets in the future? That would be great. |
| 2 | 2015-02-13 19:01 | ratrun | I slowly increased my action radius and obviously went too far, as I nearly synchrounously got a similar comment for changesethttp://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/28799534Please look up my answer there. | |
| 28425194 by ratrun @ 2015-01-26 18:45 | 1 | 2015-01-31 12:56 | BeKri ♦713 | What are you doing ?Is sehr a special problem to delete a komplett part of a street athttp://www.openstreetmap.org/way/89979654/history#map=17/48.21507/11.46298 ???be so kind to fix it. |
| 2 | 2015-01-31 14:19 | ratrun | Hello,thanks that you noticed this. I have an idea how and why this happened: I believe that it was triggered by concurrent fixing the change triggered by user nickel715 in version 6 and OSMI fixing done by user "kartler175" uploaded with version 7 at 26.1 at 19:06 and my my OSMI... |